(LIBRARY    I 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALIFORNIA 

•      SAN  DIEGO      j 


presented  to  the 
UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SAN  DIEGO 

by 

Tom  Ham 


SOCIALISM 

PROMISE   OR   MENACE? 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •    BOSTON  •    CHICAGO  •   DALLAS 
ATLANTA  •    SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


SOCIALISM 


PROMISE  OR   MENACE? 


BY 


MORRIS    HILLQUIT 

AUTHOR  OF  "HISTORY  OF  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES," 

"SOCIALISM  IN  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE,"  AND 

"SOCIALISM  SUMMED  UP" 

AND 

JOHN    A.   RYAN,   D.D. 

AUTHOR  OF  "A   LIVING  WAGE" 


FOB  EDIT! 

REVIEW  RELEASED  FOR  PIlBUOffli 

22   19(4! 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 
\I9I4 


All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT,  1913, 1914, 
BY  THE  RIDGWAY  COMPANY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN. 


COPYRIGHT,  1914, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  April,  1914. 


NorfooolJ  press 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  <fc  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

THE  chapters  which  constitute  this  book  originally 
appeared  in  seven  consecutive  issues  of  Everybody's 
Magazine.  The  large  and  generous  interest  with  which 
the  discussion  has  been  received  by  the  reading  public 
has  induced  the  authors  to  reproduce  it  with  slight 
revisions  in  the  more  permanent  form  of  a  book. 

The  scope  and  object  of  the  work  and  the  practical 
methods  employed  in  its  production  are  best  told  in 
the  introduction  of  the  editor  of  Everybody's  Magazine, 
which  is  here  reproduced  in  substance  : 

"  Here  is  a  most  distinguished  series  of  articles :  A 
joint  debate  upon  the  right  or  wrong  of  Socialism. 

"  The  opposition  to  this  world-wide  movement  comes 
not  only  from  those  who  have  qualified  themselves  to 
speak,  but  also  from  many  who  are  ill-equipped  with 
information  to  justify  their  attacks.  Moreover,  such 
criticisms  are  usually  addressed  to  audiences  already  in 
sympathy  with  them. 

"  Socialism,  too,  has  its  half-equipped  apostles.  And 
Socialist  arguments  are  offered,  for  the  most  part,  to 
people  already  attached  to  the  cause. 

"The  novel  feature  of  this  work  is  that  for  the  first 
time,  the  opposing  arguments  are  presented  with  the 
greatest  completeness  ano\  highest  competence,  and  side 
by  side,  in  a  form  availably  for  the  immediate  compari- 
son of  arguments. 


vi  PREFACE 

"The  readers  will  be  interested  in  the  personnel  of 
the  authors  and  the  circumstances  that  have  brought 
them  into  debate. 

"  The  comment  that  '  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  chief 
bulwark  against  Socialism '  is  familiar  to  many,  in  and 
outside  the  Church.  For  a  long  time  this  Church  has 
warred  against  Socialism  ;  but  during  the  past  few  years 
its  campaign  has  become  more  general  and  systematic, 
and  is  now  the  most  highly  organized  attack  on  Socialist 
doctrines. 

"  Yet  it  was  a  long  step  to  that  point  where  men  dis- 
tinguished in  the  Church  councils  finally  assented  to 
an  open  discussion  of  the  subject  in  the  pages  of  a 
secular  magazine.  Naturally,  it  would  be  out  of  the 
question  to  ask  of  the  Church  or  of  the  Socialists  that 
they  should  formally  choose  an  authoritative  representa- 
tive. This  would  be  staking  the  cause  on  one  spokes- 
man, who  would  inevitably  fail  of  perfection. 

"The  unique  thing  is  that  there  could  have  been 
even  an  approach  to  authority  in  the  guidance  which 
we  have  received  in  the  choice  of  opponents.  Men 
eminent  in  both  these  world-wide  groups  have  lent  their 
good-will,  shared  in  the  selection,  and  welcomed  the 
conflict  as  one  certain  to  be  of  the  utmost  value. 

"  Now  as  to  the  authors  themselves.  The  atack  on 
Socialism  will  be  made  by  John  Augustine  Ryan,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Moral  Theology  and  Economics  at  St.  Paul 
Seminary,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota.  Dr.  Ryan  was  born  in 
Minnesota,  received  his  early  education  there,  studied 
theology  in  St.  Paul,  and  continued  post-graduate  studies 
at  the  Catholic  University  of  America  at  Washington, 
D.C.  He  was  ordained  a  priest  in  1898,  and  eight 
years  later  was  made  a  Doctor  of  Divinity.  He  is  the 


PREFACE  Vli 

author  of  '  A  Living  Wage,'  one  of  the  standard  works 
in  its  own  department  of  economics,  and  his  writings 
and  lectures  have  given  him  national  position  as  a 
leader  of  progressive  thought  in  industrial,  economic, 
and  social  fields. 

"  Socialism  will  be  defended  by  Morris  Hillquit,  a 
distinguished  practising  lawyer  of  New  York  City. 
Mr.  Hillquit  was  born  in  Riga,  Russia,  and  after  his 
early  education  there  came  to  this  country  and  studied 
law  in  New  York.  He  is  the  author  of  '  History  of 
Socialism  in  the  United  States,'  '  Socialism  in  Theory 
and  Practice,'  and  '  Socialism  Summed  Up.'  He  has 
been  a  delegate  to  all  national  conventions  of  the  So- 
cialist party  since  1899,  and  to  the  international  con- 
gresses at  Amsterdam,  Stuttgart,  and  Copenhagen. 

"The  subject  is  not  a  discussion  as  to  whether  the 
Church  or  Socialism  is  right.  It  is  a  discussion  of 
Socialism,  attacked  by  a  Churchman  and  defended  by 
a  Socialist. 

"  Arguments  based  on  the  teachings  of  revealed  reli- 
gion are  a  factor  in  Dr.  Ryan's  discussion,  but  he 
does  not  rely  for  weapons  and  armor  on  inspiration  or 
authority. 

"  Neither  is  the  attack  narrowed  to  the  expression  of 
the  ecclesiastical  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Not 
speaking  with  authority^from  his  own  Church,  he  is  cer- 
tainly not  the  chosen  champion  of  other  denominations. 
Yet  it  is  true  that  he  isV  inevitably,  contending  for  the 
position  of  all  Christian  ^Churches  in  so  far  as  they 
oppose  Socialism  on  the  basis  of  religious  argument. 

"  The  mechanics  of  the  debate  were  somewhat  diffi- 
cult to  arrange.  In  the  outcome  it  was  decided  that  the 
authors  should  exchange  manuscripts  and  re-exchange, 


viii  PREFACE 

each  with  the  right  to  introduce  revisions  in  the  light 
of  what  the  other  had  written,  until  each  should  be 
content.  An  exception  was  made  for  the  concluding 
chapters,  the  manuscripts  of  which  have  not  been  ex- 
changed by  the  authors." 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I 
INTRODUCTION 

I.    PRELIMINARIES  :  SCOPE  AND  METHODS. 
By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

PAGE 

Formulation  of  Issues.  International  Socialism. 
Sources  of  the  Socialist  Doctrines.  "  Authorities " 
on  Socialism,  their  Significance  and  Limitations.  De- 
finition of  Socialism 1 

II.    POINTS  OF  AGREEMENT  AND  DISAGREEMENT. 
By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Party  Conventions  and  Authoritative  Writers.  Im- 
portance of  Non-economic  Views  of  Latter.  Social- 
ism an  Economic  System,  a  Social  Philosophy,  and  a 
Social  Movement.  All  Three  Rejected.  Present 
System  Amendable 10 

CHAPTER  II 
SOCIAL   EVILS    AND    REMEDIES 

I.    AN  INDICTMENT  AND  THE  VERDICT. 
By  MORRIS  HILLQJJIT. 

Difference  in  Attitude  of  Socialist  and  Reformer 
towards  Social  Problems.  Modern  Order  of  Society 
Analyzed.  Unregulated  Production.  The  "  Corner  " 
in  Culture.  Social  Warfare.  Political  and  Intellectual 
Corruption.  The  Socialist  Remedy  ....  14 


X  CONTENTS 

II.    THE  SOCIALIST  INDICTMENT  is  OVERDRAWN.    THE  REM- 
EDY is  SOCIAL  REFORM. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

PACK 

Socialist  Criticism  Exaggerated.  Economic  Condi- 
tions Improving  and  Improvable.  Other  Conditions 
not  Hopeless.  Not  the  System  but  its  Abuses  Intoler- 
able. Adequate  Remedies  in  Legislation  and  Co- 
operative Institutions 27 

III.  REJOINDER. 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

Socialism  and  Social  Reform.  The  Limits  of  Re- 
form   43 

IV.  SURREJOINDER. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Socialist  Movement  not  Fruitful  in  Social  Reforms. 
Efficiency  of  Measures  advocated  in  Main  Paper.  No 
Limit  to  Social  Progress  by  Means  of  Social  Re- 
forms    ...  44 

CHAPTER   III 
THE   SOCIALIST    INDUSTRIAL   STATE 

I.    IMMORAL  AND  IMPRACTICABLE. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Socialist  Proposals  regarding  Land  and  Artificial 
Capital.  Confiscation.  Sources  of  Capital.  Menace 
to  Agrarian  Enterprise.  Industrial  Leadership  Inef- 
ficient. The  Rank  and  File.  Socialism  vs.  Co- 
operation. Individual  Liberty  Jeopardized  .  .  48 

II.    A  JUST  AND  RATIONAL  ORDER. 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

The  Socialist  Plan  of  Industrial  Organization.  Ac- 
quisition of  Tools  of  Wealth  by  Community.  As  to 
"  Confiscation."  Sources  of  Modern  Wealth.  Land 
Ownership.  Management  under  Socialism.  Incen- 
tive to  Work.  Individual  Liberty  ....  69 


CONTENTS  3d 

CHAPTER   IV 

THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    SOCIALISM 
I.    THE  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  MARXISM. 
By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

PAGE 

The  Place  of  Theory  in  the  Socialist  Movement. 
Marxism.  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 
The  "  Class- Struggle  "  Doctrine.  "Surplus  Value." 
Socialism  as  a  Labor  Movement.  The  Trend  towards 
Socialism 88 

II.    AN  EXPLODED  PHILOSOPHY. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Economic  Determinism  fundamentally  Materialistic. 
Exaggerations.  Futility  of  Surplus- Value  Theory. 
Marx's  Prediction  of  Concentration  and  Impoverish- 
ment. Refutation  by  Subsequent  Events.  No  Trend 
toward  Socialism.  An  Aprioristic  and  Fatalistic  Phi- 
losophy   103 

III.  REJOINDER. 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

Admissions  by  Dr.  Ryan.  Classes,  Class  Interests, 
and  Class  Struggles  in  the  United  States.  The  Fac- 
tors of  Wealth  Production.  The  "  Revisionist "  Con- 
troversy   124 

IV.  SURREJOINDER. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

No  Extensive  Class  Struggle  in  the  United  States. 
Industrial  Wage-earners  a  Minority.  Demand  for 
Reforms  not  a  Demand  for  Socialism.  Surplus  Value 
Once  More.  Importance  of  "  Increasing-Misery " 
Theory  .  •  V  •  •  •  •  •  .134 

CHAPTER   V 

SOCIALISM    AND    MORALITY 
I.     SOCIALIST  MORALITY  is  IMMORAL. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Summary  and  Basis  of  Socialist  Ethics.  The  Moral 
Law  Immutable.  Socialist  Perversions  of  Individual, 
Family,  and  Civil  Morality 143 


xii  CONTENTS 

II.     IF  THIS  BE  IMMORALITY  — 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

PAGE 

Definition  of  Ethics.  Capitalist  Ethics.  Socialist 
Morality.  Variable  Ethics.  Evolution  of  Morality. 
Socialism  and  Marriage.  Socialism  and  Lawlessness  .  154 

III.  REJOINDER. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Socialist  Exaggeration  of  Ethical  Variations  in  Ideas 
and  Practices.  Necessity  of  a  Fixed  Moral  Standard. 
No  Individual  Sin?  "Love  Marriages."  Monopoly  of 
Education 166 

IV.  SURREJOINDER. 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

Dr.  Ryan's  "  Immutable  "  Ethics.  Ethical  Ideal  vs. 
Final  Ethics.  True  Monogamy.  Marriage  under 
Capitalism.  Woman  and  Industry  .  .  .  176 

CHAPTER  VI 
SOCIALISM   AND    RELIGION 

I.     SOCIALISM  is  IRRELIGIOUS. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Platform  Utterances  Disingenuous.  Anti-religious 
Declarations  of  Leaders,  Books,  and  Journals.  Ameri- 
can Movement  likewise  Irreligious.  Economic  De- 
terminism mainly  Responsible.  An  Invitation  and 
Challenge 186 

II.    SOCIALISM  is  NON-RELIGIOUS. 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

"Neutrality  Planks"  in  Socialist  Platforms.  Dif- 
ferentiation between  Religion,  Christianity,  and  Church. 
Idealistic  Religion  and  Dogmatic  Theology.  Science 
and  Religion.  Socialism  and  the  Church.  Religious 
Tolerance  of  the  Socialist  Movement.  The  Test  of 
Social  Democracy  in  Germany.  Religious  Freedom 
under  Socialism.  A  Counter-suggestion  .  .  .  199 


CONTENTS  xiii 

III.  REJOINDER. 

By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

PAGE 

A  Curious  Omission.  Economic  Determinism  vs. 
Orthodox  Religion.  Neither  Science  nor  Scientists 
Irreligious.  Socialist  Intolerance.  Socialism  Irre- 
deemable    ,  ,  ,  215 

IV.  SURREJOINDER. 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

Economic  Determinism  and  Religious  Beliefs.  The 
Opposition  of  the  Church  to  Scientific  Advance  .  .  224 

CHAPTER  VII 

SUMMARY   AND   CONCLUSIONS 
By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT. 

Significant  Admissions.  The  Evil.  The  Remedy.  The 
Methods.  Socialism  not  Materialistic,  not  Fatalistic,  not  Uto- 
pian, not  Final.  The  Church  Again 230 

CHAPTER  VIII 

SUMMARY.  AND    CONCLUSIONS 
By  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

Some  Unquestionable  Results.  The  Church  not  identified 
with  Plutocracy.  Meaning  of  Prescription.  Economic  Facts  vs. 
Socialist  Faith.  Woman  and  Marriage.  Expediency  vs.  Moral- 
ity. Socialists  vs.  Scientists.  A  Sample  of  Socialist  "  History  "  245 


SOCIALISM:   PROMISE  OR 
MENACE? 

CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  PRELIMINARIES  :  SCOPE  AND  METHODS 

BY   MORRIS   HILLQUIT 

THE  object  of  the  joint  discussion  on  Socialism  be- 
tween Dr.  John  A.  Ryan  and  myself  is  to  present  to  the 
reading  public  both  sides  of  a  much-mooted  social  prob- 
lem and  to  draw  their  attention  to  the  promise  or  menace 
of  a  movement  which  is  yearly  growing  in  influence  and 
extension. 

The  form  of  presentation  chosen  for  that  purpose  is 
best  calculated  to  secure  that  object.  A  partisan  state- 
ment of  the  Socialist  creed  and  movement  by  an  adherent 
or  opponent  must  necessarily  suffer  from  one-sidedness, 
and  all  attempts  at  an  "unbiassed"  presentation  of  both 
sides  by  one  person  are  bound  to  fail,  because  in  the 
nature  of  things  there  can  be  no  true  impartiality  on 
any  controversial  subject  of  vital  and  direct  social  im- 
port. In  a  joint  debate  between  an  avowed  Socialist  and 
a  determined  and  consistent  opponent  of  the  movement 
each  debater  may  be  expected  to  present  his  side  in  the 


2  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

strongest  light,  marshalling  all  available  facts  and  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  his  contention,  and  thus  to  enable  the 
reader  to  exercise  his  own  judgment  on  the  merits  of 
the  controversy. 

Especially  is  that  the  case  when  a  debate  is  carried  on 
from  the  deliberative  seclusion  of  the  study  with  ample 
intervals  for  dispassionate  analysis  and  careful  formula- 
tion of  statements,  rather  than  in  the  contentious  atmos- 
phere of  an  extemporaneous  polemic  from  the  platform. 

As  an  "orthodox"  Socialist,  who  has  spent  the  better 
part  of  his  life  in  active  service  of  the  organized  Socialist 
movement,  I  may  without  immodesty  undertake  to 
present  the  accepted  Socialist  position,  and  to  speak  for 
the  Socialist  movement  with  some  degree  of  authority. 
On  the  other  hand,  my  distinguished  adversary,  Dr. 
John  A.  Ryan,  is  one  of  the  few  opponents  of  Socialism 
in  this  country  who  are  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
Socialist  philosophy  and  movement,  and  whose  opposi- 
tion to  both  is  based,  not  on  mere  prejudice,  but  on  a 
fair  and  serious  criticism  of  the  Socialist  teachings  and 
practices  from  their  point  of  view.  It  may  therefore 
be  hoped  that  the  debate  will  at  all  times  preserve  the 
character  of  an  instructive  discussion  of  pertinent  issues. 

Dr.  Ryan,  besides  being  an  authority  as  a  student 
and  teacher  of  social  and  economic  science,  is  an  eminent 
Catholic  divine,  and  I  assume  that  he  will  approach 
the  subject  largely  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  all  the  more  that  the  latter  has  recently  in- 
augurated an  active  campaign  against  Socialism.  Dr. 
Ryan  will,  of  course,  be  at  liberty  to  assail  the  Socialist 
doctrines  and  methods  with  any  weapons  he  may  choose. 
He  may  base  his  opposition  on  the  arguments  of  papal 


INTRODUCTION  3 

encyclicals  just  as  well  as  on  those  of  the  conservative 
economists,  and  in  either  case  I  shall  have  to  meet  him 
on  his  own  ground.  But  I  hope  that  in  no  event  will 
the  debate  develop  into  a  discussion  of  the  comparative 
merits  or  demerits  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  the 
Socialist  movement.  The  Catholic  Church  is  not  at 
issue  in  this  debate ;  the  issue  is  and  will  always  remain 
—  Socialism.  The  Socialists  are  as  little  concerned  with 
the  Catholic  Church  as  with  any  other  organized  expres- 
sion of  religious  belief  —  they  do  not  fight  the  Catholic 
Church  unless  forced  to  do  so  in  self-defence. 

I  propose  to  defend  the  Socialist  claims  on  their  own 
merits.  I  shall  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Socialist 
philosophy  is  sound,  that  the  Socialist  ideal  is  just  and 
equitable,  that  the  Socialist  ethics  are  pure,  and  that  the 
Socialist  methods  are  legitimate  and  efficient.  If  these 
claims  should  prove  untenable,  the  Socialist  contention 
fails  of  it  own  weakness;  and  if,  on  the  contrary, 
Socialism  should  be  proved  to  be  rational  and  righteous, 
the  opposition  of  the  Catholic  Church  will  not  make  it 
less  so. 

Like  all  other  social  theories  and  practical  mass  move- 
ments, Socialism  produces  certain  divergent  schools, 
bastard  offshoots  clustering  around  the  main  trunk  of  the 
tree,  large  in  number  and  variety,  but  insignificant  in 
size  and  strength.  Thus  we  hear  of  State  Socialism, 
Socialism  of  the  Chair,  Christian  Socialism,  and  even 
Catholic  Socialism.  With  these  heterogeneous  and  het- 
erodox varieties  I  am  not  concerned — their  chief  function 
is  to  confuse  the  minds  of  the  unwary  critics  of  Socialism ; 
but  they  have  no  part  in  the  real  life  and  development  of 
the  active  Socialist  movement. 


4  SOCIALISM:   PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

The  Socialism  that  counts  and  the  one  that  is  to  be 
discussed  here  is  that  represented  by  the  politically  or- 
ganized movement.  This  numbers  its  adherents  by 
tens  of  millions,  while  the  followers  of  all  its  secondary 
forms  and  variations  in  all  countries  are  probably  well 
within  the  hundred-thousand  mark. 

The  modern  political  movement  of  Socialism  is  world- 
wide in  scope  and  is  definite  and  uniform  in  conception 
and  methods.  The  international  Socialist  movement 
consists  of  a  chain  of  organizations  or  parties,  rarely 
more  than  one  in  each  country.  These  parties  meet  at 
regular  intervals  in  convention  to  discuss  principles, 
tactics,  and  policies.  The  platforms,  resolutions,  and 
constitutions  adopted  at  such  conventions  are  the  su- 
preme expression  of  the  organized  movement.  Barring 
variations  in  phraseology  and  allowing  for  differences 
of  conditions  and  issues  confronting  the  movement  at 
different  times  and  places,  the  declarations  are  practically 
identical  in  all  cases.  The  dominant  Socialist  organiza- 
tions of  all  countries  are  organically  allied  with  one 
another.  By  means  of  an  International  Socialist  Bureau 
supported  at  joint  expense,  the  Socialist  parties  of  the 
world  maintain  uninterrupted  relations  with  one  another, 
and  every  three  years  they  meet  in  international  con- 
ventions, whose  conclusions  are  accepted  by  all  constitu- 
ent national  organizations. 

It  is  principally  the  doctrines  and  policies  formulated 
by  such  official  national  and  international  Socialist  con- 
ventions that  I  propose  to  defend  and  that  I  expect  my 
opponent  to  assail  in  this  debate. 

Principally,  but  not  exclusively. 

For  while  the  official  statements  and  declarations  of 


INTRODUCTION  5 

the  organized  Socialist  parties,  national  and  interna- 
tional, constitute  the  most  indisputable  authority  on 
the  questions  with  which  they  deal,  there  are  certain 
other  sources  which  cannot  properly  be  left  out  of  ac- 
count in  a  comprehensive  and  intelligent  discussion  on 
Socialism. 

The  practical  Socialist  movement  is  supported  by  a 
social  philosophy  which  was  formulated  by  the  "  theoreti- 
cians" of  the  movement,  and  was  and  still  is  constantly 
elaborated  by  its  students  and  writers.  In  its  everyday 
work  and  struggles  the  Socialist  movement  acts  and 
speaks  through  its  recognized  representatives  on  the 
public  platform,  in  legislative  bodies,  or  in  administrative 
offices.  The  utterances  and  acts  of  such  writers  and 
representatives,  unless  formally  repudiated  by  their 
party,  must  be  considered  as  legitimate  expressions  and 
manifestations  of  the  Socialist  movementr  and  its  de- 
fenders and  opponents  alike  may  properly  refer  to  them 
in  support  of  their  contentions.  The  same  rule  applies 
to  the  editorial  attitude  of  the  official  publications  of  the 
Socialist  parties. 

But  in  fairness  to  both  sides  of  the  debate  and  to  the 
reading  public,  certain  limitations  and  exceptions  must 
be  noted  here.  The  literature  on  Socialism  —  and  I 
refer  to  the  pro-Socialist  side  only  —  consists  of  many 
hundreds  of  volumes  written  in  all  modern  languages, 
and  there  is  no  censorship  and  no  index  expurgatorius 
in  the  Socialist  movement.  The  Socialist  author  writes 
on  his  own  responsibility.  If  his  work  meets  with  the 
approval  of  the  movement,  it  is  tacitly  adopted  as  one  of 
the  instruments  of  the  Socialist  propaganda,  otherwise 
it  is  rejected  or  ignored.  To  the  uninformed  this  designa- 


6  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

tion  of  "authorities"  may  seem  exceedingly  vague,  but  to 
persons  familiar  with  the  Socialist  movement,  its  history 
and  literature,  it  will  convey  a  tolerably  definite  test. 

Thus  Karl  Marx,  Frederick  Engels,  and  Ferdinand 
Lassalle  are  unquestionably  the  theoretical  founders  of 
the  modern  Socialist  movement,  and  their  economic  and 
political  doctrines  are  substantially  the  basis  of  the 
philosophy  of  International  Socialism.  Similarly,  almost 
every  strong  national  movement  has  produced  a  group 
of  thinkers,  writers,  or  "leaders,"  whose  utterances  are 
generally  accepted  as  authoritative  expressions  of  the 
Socialist  position. 

As  such  we  may  mention  the  Germans  August  Bebel, 
Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  and  Karl  Kautsky;  the  French- 
men Jules  Guesde,  Paul  Lafargue,  and  Jean  Jaures; 
the  Austrian  Victor  Adler;  the  Belgian  Emile  Vander- 
velde ;  the  Russian  Georges  Plekhanoff ;  and  the  English- 
men H.  M.  Hyndman  and  J.  Keir  Hardie. 

American  Socialism  has  likewise  advanced  a  number 
of  representative  spokesmen,  whose  names  will  readily 
suggest  themselves  to  all  persons  familiar  with  the  move- 
ment. The  authors  named  do  not  by  any  means  exhaust 
the  list  of  Socialist  "authorities"  —  they  are  only  men- 
tioned to  substantiate  the  claim  that  there  is  a  large 
group  of  generally  recognized  exponents  of  the  Socialist 
creed,  whose  expressed  views  may  be  invoked  in  a  discus- 
sion of  the  subject,  and  that  Socialism  cannot  be  charged 
with  the  utterances  of  unknown  or  irresponsible  writers. 

The  expression  "Socialist  authorities"  must  further- 
more be  taken  in  a  very  restricted  sense.  Socialists  are 
no  respecters  of  "authorities."  They  do  not  accept  the 
conclusions  of  their  writers  on  faith.  The  leaders  of 


INTRODUCTION  7 

Socialist  thought  are  those  who  have  been  able  to  state 
their  social  and  economic  theories  with  the  greatest 
degree  of  convincingness,  and  the  ability  to  substantiate 
their  views  with  facts  and  arguments  always  remains 
the  test  of  their  authoritativeness. 

There  is  nothing  sacred  in  the  writings  even  of  the 
founders  of  the  modern  Socialist  philosophy.  Some  of 
the  economic  doctrines  of  Ferdinand  Lassalle  and  many 
cardinal  planks  of  his  practical  programme  have  been  un- 
able to  withstand  the  test  of  experience  and  criticism, 
and  have  been  discarded  by  the  Socialist  movement. 
Some  of  the  expressed  views  of  Marx  and  Engels  have 
been  modified  by  their  Socialist  followers,  and  generally 
the  Socialist  movement  is  constantly  engaged  in  revising 
its  creed  as  well  as  its  tactics.  Socialism  is  a  modern, 
progressive  movement  engaged  in  practical,^  every/day 
struggles,  and  it  cannot  escape  the  influencfe-of^hanging 
social  conditions  or  growing  economic  knowledge.  The 
international  Socialist  movement  is  still  Marxian,  be- 
cause the  fundamental  social  and  economic  doctrines  of 
Karl  Marx,  his  collaborators  and  disciples,  still  hold 
good  in  the  eyes  of  the  vast  majority  of  Socialists ;  but 
in  the  details  of  its  methods  and  mode  of  action  the  Social- 
ist movement  to-day  is  quite  different  from  what  it  was 
in  the  days  of  Marx. 

And,  finally,  another  point  must  be  borne  in  mind  in 
any  fair  discussion  of  Socialism.  The  Socialist  "authori- 
ties" are  such  only  within  the  scope  of  their  competency, 
i.e.  on  the  subject  of  Socialist  economics  and  politics. 
Their  opinions  on  all  other  topics  must  neither  be  credited 
nor  charged  to  the  Socialist  movement. 

For  instance,  G.  Bernard  Shaw  is  a  well-known  Social- 


8  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ist,  and  has  written  several  tracts  on  economics  which 
fairly  express  the  recognized  Socialist  position.  Mr. 
Shaw  also  happens  to  be  a  playwright  and  a  dramatic 
critic.  It  would  obviously  be  preposterous  to  claim  that 
Shaw's  volumes  of  dramatic  criticism  represent  the 
Socialist  view  on  the  drama,  and,  perhaps  in  a  minor 
degree,  it  is  similarly  unwarranted  to  claim  that  Engels' 
religious  beliefs  or  Bebel's  views  on  the  institution  of  the 
family  represent  the  Socialist  conceptions  on  these  subjects. 
Like  the  opinion  of  a  judge  on  a  subject  not  directly 
involved  in  the  matter  submitted  for  his  decision,  such 
extraneous  views  are  obiter  dicta,  and  not  binding  on 
anybody  but  the  author. 

With  this  statement  of  my  opinion  on  the  object 
of  the  present  discussion  and  the  methods  to  be  employed 
in  connection  with  it,  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  outline  a 
concise  statement  of  the  aspect  of  Socialism  which  is  to 
form  the  main  subject  of  the  debate. 

The  term  Socialism  is  used  indiscriminately  to  desig- 
nate a  certain  social  philosophy,  a  scheme  of  social  or- 
ganization, and  an  active  political  movement.  As  a 
social  philosophy  Socialism  is  concerned  with  the  laws 
and  course  of  social  evolution  in  general  and  those  of  con- 
temporaneous society  in  particular.  It  proceeds  from  a 
critical  analysis  of  the  prevailing  order,  seeks  to  discover 
its  substance  and  mainsprings,  to  ascertain  the  causes 
of  its  shortcomings,  and  to  determine  the  trend  of  its 
development. 

As  a  practical  movement  Socialism  stands  primarily 
for  industrial  readjustment.  It  seeks  to  secure  greater 
planfulness  in  the  production  of  wealth  and  greater 
equity  in  its  distribution. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Concretely  stated,  the  Socialist  programme  advocates 
a  reorganization  of  the  existing  industrial  system  on  the 
basis  of  collective  or  national  ownership  of  the  social 
tools.  It  demands  that  the  control  of  the  machinery 
of  wealth  creation  be  taken  from  the  individual  capitalist 
and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  nation,  to  be  organized 
and  operated  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people.  The 
programme  implies  radical  changes  in  the  existing  indus- 
trial machinery,  political  structure,  and  social  relations. 
The  form  of  society  which  would  result  from  such  changes 
is  usually  designated  in  the  literature  on  the  subject  as 
the  Socialist  State  or  the  Socialist  Ideal. 
•  Thus  the  dominant  factors  in  the  Socialist  thought, 
movement,  and  ideal  may  be  said  to  be  of  a  politico-epe^ 
nomic  nature.  But  Socialism  is  not  devoid  of  ethical  and 
spiritual  implications.  The  Socialist  philosophy  in- 
volves certain  definite  views  of  right  and  wrong  in  the 
individual  and  social  conduct  of  men,  which  are  some- 
times at  variance  with  accepted  standards;  and  the 
Socialist  ideal  is  predicated  on  a  change  in  the  reciprocal 
relations  of  man  and  society  which  are  bound  to  affect 
our  conceptions  of  individual  and  social  duty.  The 
moral  conceptions  implied  in  the  Socialist  programme 
constitute  the  code  of  Socialist  ethics. 

An  adequate  treatment  of  the  subject  will  thus  require 
a  discussion  of  the  Socialist  criticism  and  programme  and 
the  Socialist  ideal  and  philosophy,  as  well  as  the  bearings 
of  Socialism  on  morals  and  religion.  I  propose  to  present 
the  Socialist  claims  under  these  various  heads  in  the 
succeeding  chapters,  and  I  trust  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  my  opponent  to  give  adequate  expression  to  the  op- 
posite views. 


10  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

II.  POINTS  OF  AGREEMENT  AND  DISAGREEMENT 

BY  JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D. 

My  opponent's  general  statement  of  the  methods 
that  we  have  agreed  to  follow  in  the  discussion  now  be- 
ginning leaves  nothing  under  that  head  for  me  to  add, 
subtract,  or  otherwise  modify.  He  is  to  defend  Socialism 
in  the  ways  that  seem  best  to  him,  and  I  am  to  oppose 
it  with  whatever  weapons  I  choose.  His  generous  per- 
sonal references  to  me  are  naturally  gratifying,  even 
though  strict  candour  would  compel  me  to  admit  that 
they  are  not  entirely  deserved.  In  the  spirit  as  well  as 
the  matter  of  his  first  paper  he  sets  a  standard  of  cour- 
teous, dispassionate  writing  which  I  will  at  all  times 
emulate.  The  debate  will  be  one  of  issues,  not  of  per- 
sonalities. 

Mr.  Hillquit's  delimitation  of  the  subject-matter  and 
his  conception  of  the  sources  and  standards  for  argumen- 
tation are  on  the  whole  the  same  as  mine.  Not  any  of 
the  minor  schools  and  varieties,  but  International  Social- 
ism, is  the  thing  that  we  are  to  debate.  The  doctrines 
and  policies  of  this  system,  as  set  forth  in  national  and 
international  conventions,  "constitute  the  most  indis- 
putable authority  on  the  subjects  with  which  they  deal." 
Nevertheless,  "there  are  certain  other  sources  which  can- 
not properly  be  left  out  of  account."  For  the  living 
thing  called  Socialism  is  underlaid  and  permeated  by  a 
fairly  definite  social  philosophy,  and  "is  not  devoid  of 
ethical  and  spiritual  implications." 

These  elements  are  to  be  found  in  the  pronouncements, 
whether  by  voice  on  the  platform  or  by  pen  in  books 


INTRODUCTION  II 

and  journals,  of  the  recognized  authorities  and  represent- 
atives of  the  Socialist  movement.  What  they  say  and 
do  must  be  taken  as  the  legitimate  expression  of  the 
movement  until  it  is  formally  repudiated.  Some  of  the 
most  important  of  these  authoritative  persons  are  named, 
and  others  are  alluded  to,  in  Mr.  Hillquit's  article.  They 
would  be  accepted  as  adequately  representative  Socialists 
by  any  intelligent  student  of  Socialism.  His  concep- 
tion of  the  limited  sense  in  which  they  are  recognized 
as  authorities  by  their  fellow-Socialists  is  likewise  unex- 
ceptionable. 

There  is,  however,  one  statement  made  by  my  oppo- 
nent concerning  the  competency  of  these  authorities 
which  is  not  entirely  adequate.  They  are,  he  tells  us, 
authorities  only  "on  the  subject  of  Socialist  economics 
and  politics.  Their  opinions  on  all  other  topics  must 
neither  be  credited  nor  charged  to  the  Socialist  move- 
ment." For  example,  the  views  of  Bernard  Shaw  con- 
cerning the  drama  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  Social- 
ist thought  on  the  topic. 

I  admit  the  truth  of  the  illustration,  and  for  three 
good  reasons :  first,  Mr.  Shaw's  notions  on  this  subject 
are  apparently  peculiar  to  himself ;  second,  they  do  not 
appear  in  those  of  his  writings  which  deal  specifically 
with  Socialism ;  and,  third,  they  are  not  placed  by  him 
in  any  definite  relation  to  Socialism  or  Socialist  phi- 
losophy. 

When,  however,  Mr.  Hillquit  thus  continues:  "and, 
perhaps  in  a  minor  degree,  it  is  similarly  unwarranted 
to  claim  that  Engels'  religious  beliefs  or  Bebel's  views  on 
the  institution  of  the  family  represent  the  Socialist  con- 
ceptions on  these  subjects,"  he  understates  the  impor- 


12  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

tance  and  relevance  of  these  particular  utterances.  As 
I  shall  try  to  show  at  length  in  the  proper  place,  such  non- 
economic  opinions  as  these  have  a  direct  and  significant 
bearing  on  Socialist  philosophy  and  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. 

We  are,  as  Mr.  Hillquit  states  in  his  closing  paragraphs, 
to  discuss  Socialism  under  a  threefold  aspect.  We 
shall  consider  it  not  merely  as  an  economic  and  political 
system,  but  also  as  a  social  philosophy  and  a  living  social 
movement.  Were  we  to  do  less  than  this,  our  treatment 
of  the  subject  would  be  partial,  misleading,  and  inade- 
quate. Every  social  ideal  pursued  by  a  social  group 
involves  a  movement  and  a  philosophy.  If  there  be  ex- 
ceptions to  this  rule,  they  do  not  include  in  their  number 
the  subject  of  this  debate.  Adequately  considered,  then, 
Socialism  is  an  end,  a  means,  and  a  set  of  fundamental 
principles.  The  end  is  the  Socialist  State,  or  Socialist 
reorganization  of  society;  the  means  is  the  concrete 
Socialist  movement  with  its  organized  political  party, 
its  literature,  and  its  general  propaganda;  while  the 
principles  or  philosophy  consist  mainly  of  an  interpreta- 
tion of  history,  and  a  theory  of  social  forces  and  social 
evolution. 

Although  the  Socialist  State  might  conceivably  be 
cherished  and  striven  for  by  a  different  kind  of  move- 
ment from  that  known  as  International  Socialism,  and 
might  start  from  and  be  motived  by  a  different  social 
philosophy,  the  fact  is  that  the  movement  and  the 
philosophy  with  which  we  have  to  deal  are  those  which 
Mr.  Hillquit  has  outlined.  It  is  this  living  reality  and 
not  some  imaginary  or  artificial  Socialism  that  we  are 
to  discuss. 


INTRODUCTION  13 

Thus  far  we  are  in  agreement.  Thus  far,  and  no 
farther.  For  I  reject  and  oppose  Socialism  in  all  three 
aspects.  As  a  social  philosophy,  it  reaches  some  glim- 
merings of  truth,  but  is  in  the  main  false.  As  a  living 
movement,  it  involves  and  disseminates  so  many  and 
such  baneful  errors,  social,  religious,  and  ethical,  that  it 
is  a  constant  menace  to  right  principles  and  a  right 
order  of  society.  As  a  contemplated  economic-political 
scheme,  it  would  bring  in  more  and  greater  evils  than  it 
would  abolish. 

While  holding  these  rather  decided  views  regarding 
Socialism,  I  would  have  the  reader  understand  that  I 
am  not  an  undiscriminating  apologist  of  the  present 
industrial  system.  In  many  of-its  elements  it  is  far, 
very  far,  from  satisfactory  or  teieTatteT^Ori  the  other 
hand,  it  is  not  bankrupt.  It  has  in  it  the  possibilities 
of  immense  improvement.  Hence  we  are  not  compelled 
to  continue  it  as  it  now  is  or  to  fly  to  Socialism.  There 
is  a  third  alternative,  namely,  the  existing  system  greatly, 
even  radically,  amended. 

And  this  I  believe  to  be  the  only  reasonable  choice, 
and  the  only  enduring  outcome. 


CHAPTER  II 

SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES 
I.  AN  INDICTMENT  AND  THE  VERDICT 

BY  MORRIS   HILLQUIT 

THAT  the  world  needs  mending,  is  generally  conceded. 
It  is  the  tacit  assumption  from  which  proceed  all  modern 
social  and  political  activities,  even  those  of  the  most 
conservative  character.  The  divisions  in  public  opinion 
arise  only  over  the  question  of  the  extent  of  the  needed 
improvement  and  the  methods  of  accomplishment. 

The  old-line  politicians  and  statesmen  and  the  con- 
ventional philanthropists  and  church  workers  take  it 
for  granted  that  the  prevailing  order  of  society  is  funda- 
mentally sound,  and  that  its  workings  are,  on  the  whole, 
just  and  beneficial.  The  few  social  flaws  which  they 
discern  they  consider  as  purely  accidental,  something 
in  the  nature  of  a  passing  sore  on  a  healthy  body. 

The  more  modern  political  reformers  and  social-better- 
ment workers  have  a  somewhat  wider  range  of  social 
vision,  but  they  too  do  not  question  the  foundation  of 
the  body  social  and  politic.  The  difference  between  the 
most  advanced  reformer  and  the  most  conservative 
"stand-patter"  is  one  of  degree,  not  of  substance.  The 
distinguishing  feature  of  Socialism  as  a  social  philosophy 
lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  more  scientific  in  its  criticism 
and  more  radical  in  its  remedy. 

14 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  15 

Socialism  proceeds  from  a  thoroughgoing  analysis  of 
the  practical  workings  of  the  existing  economic,  political, 
and  social  institutions.  It  refuses  to  treat  their  multi- 
form shortcomings  as  accidental  and  unrelated  phenom- 
ena, and  endeavours  to  establish  their  mutual  bearings 
and  to  discover  their  common  source.  Its  attack  is 
directed  primarily  against  that  source,  the  underlying 
social  wrong,  which  is  the  root  of  all  minor  and  specific 
complaints. 

The  most  serious  social  problems  which  confront  the 
present  generation  may  be  grouped  under  five  main  heads, 
which  together  cover  practically  all  phases  of  our  com- 
munal existence — the  economic,  cultural,  social,  political, 
and  intellectual.  Of  these  the  economic  problem  is  by 
far  the  most  important,  and  des^r^es^oTirfirst  attention. 

The  striking  feature  of  the  modern  plan  of  industrial 
organization  in  its  early  phases  of  development  is  the  lack 
of  plan  and  absence  of  organization.  In  the  most  vital 
function  of  associated  human  beings,  the  "production 
of  wealth,"  which  means  the  process  of  sustaining  life, 
anarchy  reigns  supreme.  The  necessaries  and  comforts 
of  the  community  are  not  produced  on  an  intelligent 
plan  based  on  the  needs  of  the  population  and  the  avail- 
able supply  of  raw  material  and  productive  forces.  They 
are  created  and  thrown  into  the  market  pell-mell  by  an 
indeterminate  number  of  individual,  competing,  and 
unorganized  manufacturers. 

The  system  involves  an  insane  waste  of  human  effort 
in  duplication  of  plants  and  machinery,  in  sales  forces, 
advertising,  and  other  unproductive  factors  of  competi- 
tive warfare.  Work  is  unregulated  and  uncertain, 
periods  of  strenuous  and  taxing  activity  alternating  with 


1 6  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

seasons  of  enforced  idleness.  The  planless  and  casual 
mode  of  production  often  results  either  in  a  scarcity  or 
in  a  superabundance  of  supplies. 

In  the  former  case  the  price  of  products  rises  to  a  point 
which  puts  them  beyond  the  reach  of  the  needy  con- 
sumer, and  the  latter  is  apt  to  inflict  on  society  that  most 
fearful  of  capitalist  scourges  —  the  industrial  crisis. 

When  the  market  is  stocked  with  such  an  excessive 
quantity  of  commodities  that  the  consumers  have  neither 
ability  nor  means  to  absorb  them,  industrial  paralysis 
ensues.  The  wheels  of  production  cease  to  turn,  the 
arteries  of  trade  are  clogged.  Millions  of  workers  are 
thrown  out  of  employment,  thousands  of  business  enter- 
prises collapse.  Men,  women,  and  children  succumb 
for  want  of  food  and  clothing,  and  all  the  time  food  and 
clothing  are  piled  up  in  prodigious  quantities,  rotting 
for  lack  of  consumers. 

The  competitive  system  of  private  capitalism  erects 
an  unsurmountable  barrier  between  the  workers  and 
their  work,  between  the  people  and  their  food. 

These  glaring  defects  of  competition  in  manufacture 
and  trade  ultimately  lead  to  its  partial  suppression. 
The  capitalists  begin  to  organize.  The  individual  mer- 
chant and  manufacturer  yield  to  the  corporation,  and  the 
latter  rapidly  grows  into  that  most  modern  of  industrial 
phenomena  —  the  trust.  The  trusts  succeed  in  elimi- 
nating some  of  the  evils  of  unbridled  competition,  but 
they  exact  a  terrible  price  for  the  service.  With  the 
control  of  the  market  in  each  important  industry  they 
acquire  practically  unrestricted  powers  over  the  workers 
as  well  as  the  consumers,  and  they  do  not  hesitate  to 
use  and  abuse  these  powers  to  the  utmost. 


SOCIAL  EVILS   AND   REMEDIES  17 

To  the  trusts  furthermore  belongs  the  credit  of  having 
perfected  the  most  pernicious  of  modern  methods  of 
financial  malpractice  —  the  "watering"  of  stocks.  In 
creating  by  their  mere  fiat  new  income-bearing  "securi- 
ties" to  the  extent  of  billions  of  dollars,  they  impose 
a  heavier  tax  on  the  people  of  this  country  than  the  com- 
bined organs  of  government  ever  dared  to  exact. 

And  the  nation,  as  at  present  organized,  is  helpless 
before  them.  No  amount  of  denunciation  will  shake 
their  massive  foundation,  no  penal  legislation  or  court 
decrees  will  curtail  their  tremendous  powers,  as  the 
sturdy  corpses  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company,  the  To- 
bacco Trust,  and  other  "dissolved "/combines  eloquently 
attest.  In  the  face  of  popular  cl^rrjruji^ajidr-in^ignation 
they  stand  like  huge  giants,  complacently  grinning  at 
the  impotent  ravings  of  excited  pygmies. 

The  trusts  have  largely  abolished  industrial  anarchy. 
They  have  reared  in  its  place  the  formidable  throne  of 
industrial  autocracy. 

The  economic  ascendency  of  the  capitalists  places 
them  in  a  position  to  apportion  the  annual  product  of 
the  country  among  its  inhabitants.  To  be  sure,  they  do 
not  discharge  that  function  consciously  or  planfully  — 
they  operate  indirectly,  each  within  his  own  sphere; 
but  the  collective  result  of  the  process  amounts  to  an 
effective  division  of  wealth,  periodically  accomplished 
by  the  capitalist  class. 

And  the  plan  upon  which  the  division  proceeds  is 
exceedingly  simple :  — 

The  working  population  as  a  whole  gets  just  a  little 
less  than  is  necessary  to  maintain  it  in  physical  fitness 


l8  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

for  its  task  and  to  enable  it  to  reproduce  the  species 
worker. 

The  balance  is  retained  by  the  capitalist  purveyors 
as  their  just  share  of  the  "national"  wealth. 

It  is  this  method  of  wealth  distribution  which  rears 
our  thousands  of  powerful  millionnaires,  with  their  proud 
mansions  and  dazzling  luxury,  and  it  is  this  method 
also  that  breeds  our  millions  of  paupers  with  their  disrep- 
utable dwellings,  their  filth  and  rags.  To  this  capitalist 
system  of  wealth  distribution  we  are  largely  indebted 
for  our  libraries,  our  hospitals,  rescue  missions,  and 
charitable  institutions  of  all  descriptions;  also  for  our 
pauperism,  child  labour,  trade  diseases,  white  slavery, 
and  many  other  forms  of  destitution  and  its  twin  sisters, 
crime  and  vice. 

The  monopoly  of  material  wealth  inevitably  involves 
a  corresponding  monopoly  in  education  and  culture.  If 
the  degree  of  civilization  attained  by  a  community  is  to 
be  measured  not  by  the  heights  of  accomplishment 
reached  by  the  few,  but  by  the  general  diffusion  of  cul- 
ture among  the  masses,  then  indeed  our  modern  civiliza- 
tion is  a  miserable  failure. 

The  large  masses  of  the  people  participate  to  some  ex- 
tent in  the  benefits  of  the  practical  achievements  of 
modern  science,  but  the  general  cultural  influences  of  the 
marvellous  scientific  discoveries  of  recent  times  pass  by 
them  with  little  effect.  Millions  of  mine  workers,  fac- 
tory hands,  and  street  labourers  culturally  still  live  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  and  as  to  the  fine  arts,  the  drama, 
literature,  music,  painting,  and  sculpture,  and  all  the 
things  that  go  so  far  toward  ennobling  and  embellishing 
the  life  of  the  individual,  they  simply  do  not  exist  for 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  19 

the  vast  majority  of  the  people,  who  have  neither  means 
nor  leisure  to  cultivate  them. 

But  the  most  disastrous  effect  of  the  system  of  private 
capitalistic  industries  is  the  division  of  the  population 
into  distinct  social  and  economic  groups  with  conflicting 
and  hostile  interests.  The  prevailing  system  of  industrial 
ownership  and  operation  arrays  the  producer  against 
the  consumer,  the  tenant  against  the  landlord,  and  the 
worker  against  the  employer. 

Most  far  reaching  in  social  consequences  is  the  war 
between  the  latter  two  classes.  For  there  is  war,  and 
nothing  but  war,  between  the  capftajisjt jmd_the  worker, 
in  spite  of  the  conventional  cant  about  the  alleged  har- 
mony of  their  economic  interests.  The  capitalists' 
profits  stand  in  inverse  ratio  to  the  workers'  wages  and 
vice  versa.  So  long  as  the  industries  of  the  country  are 
operated  for  the  private  advantage  of  the  individual 
capitalist,  so  long  will  the  latter  strive  to  secure  the 
maximum  of  work  for  the  minimum  of  pay ;  and  so  long 
as  human  labour  remains  a  mere  commodity  to  be  sold 
to  the  capitalist  in  open  market,  so  long  will  the  worker 
strive  to  save  and  conserve  this,  his  sole  valuable  posses- 
sion, and  to  obtain  as  large  a  price  for  it  as  he  can. 

There  is  no  more  harmony  between  privately  owned 
capital  and  wage-earning  labour  than  there  is  between  the 
wolf  and  the  lamb.  The  modern  capitalist  extracts  his 
profits  by  dint  of  his  economic  power,  the  ownership  of 
the  tools  of  work.  The  modern  toiler  does  his  share  of 
the  world's  work  under  protest.  When  he  does  not 
strike  or  boycott  or  destroy  his  employer's  property,  he 
renders  his  services  grudgingly.  Instinctively  he  hates 


20  SOCIALISM:   PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

his  employer,  for  he  feels  that  the  latter  is  robbing  him 
of  a  large  portion  of  his  legitimate  product  by  means  of 
an  artificial  social  arrangement. 

The  employer  feels  and  fears  that  hatred,  and  is  al- 
ways on  the  watch  for  open  outbreaks  of  the  sentiment, 
prepared  to  quell  the  ever  anticipated  revolts  of  his 
"hands"  by  a  course  of  starvation,  enforced,  if  need  be, 
by  the  clubs  of  the  police,  the  rifles  of  the  militia,  or  by 
court  injunctions.  "Industrial  disputes"  are  not  the 
exception,  they  are  almost  the  rule,  in  the  relations  of 
employer  and  employee.  Our  industrial  derangement, 
miscalled  "system,"  operates  through  a  state  of  perma- 
nent industrial  warfare,  in  which  the  true  producers  of 
all  wealth  are  treated  as  prisoners  of  war. 

This  general  and  relentless  social  strife  is  not  fomented 
by  malevolent  "agitators."  It  is  rooted  in  the  very 
foundations  of  the  system  of  capitalism  and  is  the 
most  damning  indictment  against  it. 

Nor  are  the  direct  economic  faults  of  the  existing 
order  its  only  or  even  greatest  curse.  The  diseased  germs 
of  the  system  are  bound  to  infect  all  organs  of  the  body 
politic  with  their  insidious  poison.  For,  after  all,  modern 
politics  is  mainly  concerned  with  affairs  of  business 
within  the  municipality,  state,  and  nation.  Franchises 
and  grants  for  public-service  corporations,  tariffs  for  man- 
ufacturing industries,  supervision  of  certain  quasi-public 
business  concerns,  regulation  of  rates  and  charges  of 
others,  and  rules  with  respect  to  certain  employments  — 
these  constitute  the  largest  items  on  the  calendar  of 
every  legislative  body,  and  all  such  legislation  has  a  direct 
effect  on  the  capitalist's  ledger. 


SOCIAL   EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  21 

The  capitalists  are  likewise  vitally  concerned  in  the 
personnel  of  the  executive  and  judicial  officials.  The 
favours  or  disfavours  of  such  officials  often  mean  dollars 
and  cents  to  them.  The  big  business  interests  have 
thus  a  direct  and  practical  motive  in  seeking  to  influence 
or  control  politics.  And  therein  lies  the  main  cause  of 
all  contemporary  political  corruption.  The  national 
campaigns  of  the  old  political  parties  are  financed,  hence 
controlled,  very  largely  by  the  national  trusts  through 
their  individual  representatives;  the  state  campaigns 
by  the  principal  railroad  lines  of  the^state;  and  the 
municipal  campaigns  by  the  local  tractiony^gas^or-ether 
"public-service"  corporations. 

Under  these  conditions  politics  becomes  a  lucrative  call- 
ing exercised  by  a  large  army  of  professionals,  trained  in 
the  fine  art  of  trafficking  in  votes,  public  offices,  and  legis- 
lative enactments.  The  Spartan  band  of  our  honest  but 
simple  statesmen  may  continue  exerting  their  ingenuity 
toward  the  elaboration  of  an  ideal  Corrupt  Practices  Act 
and  perfect  primary  laws,  and  our  public-spirited  munici- 
pal reformers  may  remain  on  their  life-job  of  purifying 
local  politics ;  they  may  even  succeed  in  curbing  the  raw 
methods  of  open  barter  and  in  introducing  greater  out- 
ward decency ;  but  they  cannot  change  the  substance. 

So  long  as  politics  has  a  direct  bearing  on  private 
profits,  there  will  always  exist  a  commercial  alliance 
between  the  capitalist  and  the  politician,  the  former 
having  a  constant  incentive  to  corrupt,  and  the  latter 
being  in  the  business  of  being  corrupted. 

And  what  is  true  of  politics  holds  equally  good  of  the 
effects  of  capitalism  on  all  fields  of  the  intellectual  and 
spiritual  life  of  the  nation. 


22  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

The  general  state  of  public  enlightenment  in  the  last 
analysis  determines  all  social  and  political  developments 
of  the  country. 

The  natural  and  direct  impulse  of  every  individual  or 
group  or  class  of  individuals  is  to  act  in  a  manner  most 
conducive  to  the  promotion  of  his  or  their  interests.  But 
in  order  to  make  the  action  effective,  the  interests  must 
be  intelligently  understood.  If  the  majority  of  the 
people  clearly  perceived  their  needs  and  rights,  and 
realized  their  power,  no  minority  would  ever  rule.  The 
fact  that  all  ruling  classes  in  history  have  been  in  the 
minority  is  to  be  largely  accounted  for  by  their  ability 
to  impose  on  the  rest  of  the  population  such  views  and 
notions  as  were  required  to  preserve  their  rule. 

Not  that  the  rule  of  any  dominant  class  was  ever 
based  on  purely  intellectual  concepts  —  on  the  contrary, 
they  were  always  supported  by  brute  physical  force  in 
the  shape  of  strong  armies;  but  nevertheless  they  de- 
pended ultimately  on  popular  sanction.  In  the  absence 
of  such  sanction  the  ruling  classes  could  not  even  recruit 
and  maintain  their  armies  in  the  long  run. 

The  capitalists  are  no  exception  to  this  general  histori- 
cal rule.  They  constitute  a  minority  in  the  population 
of  every  civilized  country.  Their  rule  is  based  on  their 
ownership  of  the  tools  of  work,  the  laws  which  sanction 
and  protect  such  ownership,  and  the  government  organ- 
ized to  enforce  such  sanction  and  protection.  But  in 
a  political  democracy  the  laws  may  change  with  every 
change  of  the  popular  notion  of  justice  and  expediency, 
and  the  government  is  always  the  football  of  contending 
forces  of  diverse  material  interests.  To  preserve  their 
economic  power  the  capitalists  must  therefore  retain 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  23 

their  political  control,  and  the  latter  presupposes  the 
support  of  a  majority  of  the  people. 

Modern  capitalism  depends  on  popular  sanction  even 
in  a  larger  measure  than  the  class  rules  of  the  past,  be- 
cause that  sanction  must  be  renewed  and  solemnly  at- 
tested every  few  years  at  the  ballot-box. 

The  capitalists  are  thus  vitally  concerned  in  the  state 
of  enlightenment,  social  views,  economic  doctrines,  and 
ethical  conceptions  of  their  fellow-citizens,  and  they 
spare  no  effort  to  shape  them  in  conformity  with-their — 
own  notions  and  interests.  The  press,  the  pulpit,  and 
the  school  are  largely  under  their  influence,  if  not  directly 
in  their  service. 

The  most  influential  part  of  the  daily  press  is  either 
owned  outright  by  them,  or  mortgaged  to  them,  or  de- 
pendent on  them  through  advertisements  and  similar 
bonds  of  friendship,  and  the  average  editorial  writer 
quite  naturally  views  the  world  and  its  problems  through 
the  coloured  spectacles  of  his  masters. 

The  churches,  especially  the  larger  and  wealthier,  are 
also  supported  by  the  money  interests,  and  their  ministers 
in  most  cases  quite  innocently  and  sincerely  deliver  the 
message  of  Christ  in  the  version  of  the  factory  superin- 
tendent. 

The  public  schools  suffer  from  the  same  malign  politi- 
cal influences  which  corrupt  the  city  councils,  and  the 
colleges  and  universities  are  often  founded,  endowed,  or 
supported  by  benevolent  capitalists,  on  the  tacit  condi- 
tion that  science  is  at  all  times  to  remain  respectable  and 
respectful. 

The  existence  of  an  "independent"  press  and  the  oc- 
casional type  of  the  progressive  preacher  and  the  radical 


24  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

college  professor  only  prove  that  exceptionally  vigorous 
spirits  may  assert  themselves  in  spite  of  the  corrupting 
influences  of  capitalist  economic  pressure.  They  justify 
the  hope  of  Socialism,  but  do  not  mitigate  the  evils  of 
Capitalism. 

In  his  reply  to  this  statement  Dr.  Ryan  asserts  that 
the  press,  the  school,  and  the  church  must  furnish  the 
moral  and  intellectual  remedies  against  the  social  evil  of 
our  day  and  generation.  Why  and  how  must  they? 
This  categoric  imperative  has  been  hurled  at  them  for 
a  great  many  centuries  without  visible  effect.  What 
reason  does  my  hopeful  opponent  have  to  assume  that 
they  will  respond  to  his  challenge  now  ? 

It  seems  to  me  quite  clear  that  so  long  as  the  sources 
of  popular  knowledge  and  faith  and  the  organs  of  public 
expression  are  monopolized  by  private  capitalist  interests, 
so  long  will  they  serve  the  same  purpose  as  the  privately 
owned  tools  of  production  —  to  fortify  the  capitalist  rule. 

Thus  the  most  serious  defects  in  our  scheme  of  social 
arrangement  may  be  readily  traced  to  one  common  source 
-  the  system  which  hands  over  to  a  relatively  small 
number  of  favoured  individuals  the  very  key  to  the  life 
and  welfare  of  the  whole  people,  the  sources  of  life  and 
the  tools  of  work,  and  allows  them  to  monopolize  wealth, 
power,  ease,  and  culture,  leaving  the  majority  of  their 
fellow-men  to  struggle  in  poverty,  dependence,  toil,  and 
ignorance  —  the  anarchistic,  predatory,  demoralizing, 
and  corrupting  system  of  Capitalism. 

It  is  no  answer  to  the  Socialist  indictment  to  say  that 
with  all  its  shortcomings  modern  civilization  is  superior 
to  all  conditions  of  the  past. 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND   REMEDIES  25 

The  modern  or  capitalist  era  has  introduced  certain 
grave  social  problems  unknown  to  the  past.  It  has 
increased  the  risks  and  the  insecurity  of  the  working 
population,  it  has  intensified  social  contrasts,  and  has 
reared  a  new  social  power  of  unprecedented  virulence 
and  menace,  the  money  power.  But  with  all  that  the 
Socialists  cheerfully  admit  that,  on  the  whole,  life  is  more 
propitious  to-day  even  to  the  masses  than  it  was  ^t  any 
time  in  the  past.  The  very  foundation  of 
mistic  philosophy  rests  on  the  realization  of  the  world's 
never  ceasing  process  of  betterment. 

The  Socialists,  however,  refuse  to  admit  that  the 
capitalist  system  is  the  ultimate  and  perfect  form  of 
social  development  and  the  last  word  of  history.  The 
criterion  of  their  criticism  is  not  the  conditions  of  the  past, 
but  the  measure  in  which  the  present  has  taken  advan- 
tage or  failed  to  take  advantage  of  the  available  forces 
of  improvement. 

When  a  nation  is  poor  in  natural  resources  and  un- 
skilled in  the  art  of  producing  its  sustenance  by  appro- 
priate instruments  and  methods,  the  sum  of  supplies 
produced  or  secured  will  naturally  fall  short  of  the  norm 
required  to  satisfy  the  needs  of  all  inhabitants.  Poverty 
is  legitimate  under  such  circumstances,  and  struggles 
for  food  among  men  are  inevitable. 

But  when  a  people  is  abundantly  blessed  with  fertile 
soil,  forests,  minerals,  and  other  sources  of  wealth,  and 
has  developed  a  perfect  system  for  the  production,  trans- 
portation, and  distribution  of  goods,  it  is  placed  in  a 
position  to  take  care  of  the  reasonable  needs  of  all  its 
members.  In  such  case  poverty  and  brute  fights  for  food 
or  wealth  are  no  longer  "natural"  -they  are  purely 


26  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

artificial  and  evidence  of  a  serious  flaw  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  industrial  system. 

The  Socialists  contend  that  all  modern  civilized  na- 
tions are  amply  provided  with  natural  wealth,  and  that 
the  development  of  the  marvelous  instruments  of  pro- 
duction, transportation,  and  exchange  within  the  last 
century  has  increased  the  fertility  of  human  labour  to 
such  an  extent  that  every  nation  is  able  to  feed,  clothe, 
and  house  its  inhabitants  with  perfect  ease. 

The  reason  that  this  is  not  done,  and  that  the  richest 
nations  present  the  most  appalling  scenes  of  poverty 
and  destitution  among  large  sections  of  the  population, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  modern  societies  wealth 
is  not  at  all  created  for  the  satisfaction  of  human  needs, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  a  number  of  chosen  in- 
dividuals, commonly  styled  capitalists,  to  hoard  up  for- 
tunes. 

In  other  words,  our  industrial  machinery  is  organized 
for  private  profit,  not  for  public  use. 

Socialism  proposes  to  abolish  the  capitalist  industrial 
monopoly  and  to  organize  and  develop  in  its  stead  a 
system  of  socialized  industries,  i.e.  a  system  by  which 
the  important  industries  of  the  country  shall  be  operated 
by  the  people,  under  rational  and  democratic  forms  of 
organization  and  management,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
whole  community,  and  not  for  the  profit  of  individual 
capitalists.  The  first  step  to  such  a  system  is  the  ac- 
quisition by  the  people,  through  their  government,  of 
all  the  general  sources  and  resources  of  wealth  and  the 
modern  instruments  of  labour.  More  technically  stated, 
Socialism  stands  for  the  collective  ownership  of  all  social 
sources  and  instruments  of  wealth  production,  to  be 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  27 

operated  under  democratic  administration  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  people. 


II.  THE  SOCIALIST  INDICTMENT  is  OVERDRAWN  :   THE 
REMEDY  is  SOCIAL  REFORM 

BY  JOHN  A.   RYAN,  D.D. 

The  remedy  for  our  social  ills  proposed  by  the  Socialist 
is,  indeed,  more  radical  than  the  programme  of  the  social 
reformer.  But  the  Socialist  criticism  is  not  more  scien- 
tific. It  is  not  scientific  at  all.  It  exaggerates  the  wrongs 
and  defects  of  the  existing  order  because  it  considers  them 
without  reference  to  the  achievements  of  the  past  and 
the  possibilities  of  the  present  and  future ;  because  it  at- 
tributes to  human  nature  and  human  institutions  a  per- 
fectibility that  is  not  justified  by  experience ;  and  because 
it  makes  social  causality  and  social  processes  entirely  too 
simple. 

Mr.  Hillquit's  indictment  of  our  methods  of  wealth 
production  may  be  summed  up  in  his  own  words,  "an- 
archy reigns  supreme."  As  a  consequence  of  this 
anarchy  we  have :  an  enormous  waste  of  energy  and  re- 
sources; alternating  periods  of  over-employment  and 
under-employment ;  untold  suffering  by  millions  of 
human  beings;  monopolistic  concentration  which  exer- 
cises "practically  unrestricted  powers  over  the  workers 
as  well  as  the  consumers,"  and  which  defies  even  the 
government  itself ;  and,  finally,  a  system  of  distribution 
which  doles  out  to  the  working  population  "just  a  little 
less  than  is  necessary  to  maintain  it  in  physical  fitness 
for  its  task  and  to  enable  it  to  reproduce  the  species 


28  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

worker"  a  system  of  distribution  which  breeds  "thou- 
sands of  powerful  millionnaires,  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  mil- 
lions of  paupers  with  their  disreputable  dwellings,  their 
filth  and  rags." 

Of  these  assertions  some  are  true  only  in  a  figurative 
sense;  others  are  only  half-truths;  none  is  true  ade- 
quately or  scientifically ;  and  all  are  misleading. 

Figures  of  Speech.  The  nation,  says  my  opponent, 
is  helpless  before  the  trusts. 

How  does  he  know?  The  strength  of  the  nation  in 
this  respect  has  never  been  tested. 

During  the  period  of  less  than  twenty  years  in  which 
the  trusts  were  organizing,  no  systematic,  comprehen- 
sive, and  persistent  effort  was  set  in  motion  to  prevent, 
control,  or  dissolve  them.  To  assume  that  the  partial 
dissolution  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  and  the 
American  Tobacco  Company  by  a  court  decree  has  ex- 
hausted the  power  of  the  government,  is  to  ignore  the 
greater  part  of  its  resources  both  in  the  field  of  preven- 
tion and  punishment.  Thank  God,  we  now  have  a  na- 
tional administration  which  does  not  believe  either  in  the 
craven  doctrine  of  trust  omnipotence  or  in  the  paralyzing 
superstition  of  trust  efficiency,  and  which  will  earnestly 
and  intelligently  utilize  all  the  powers  of  the  nation 
against  Mr.  Hillquit's  "huge  giants." 

Not  until  this  plan  has  met  with  decisive  failure  will 
his  pessimistic  presentment  of  national  helplessness  be 
within  measurable  distance  of  literal  and  scientific 
statement. 

Another  purely  figurative  assertion  is  that  "  the  work- 
ing population  as  a  whole  gets  just  a  little  less  than  is 
necessary  to  maintain  it  in  physical  fitness  for  its  task 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  29 

and  to  enable  it  to  reproduce  the  species  worker"  There- 
fore, the  working-class  must  in  time  disappear,  since  its 
ranks  cannot  be  recruited  indefinitely  from  the  middle 
class.  That  would  be  one  solution  of  the  class  struggle. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  majority  of  the  wage-earners 
do  marry  and  reproduce.  Practically  all  the  skille 
workers,  and  a  considerable  portion  of  the  unskilled, 
get  sufficient  remuneration  to  command  some  leisure, 
recreation,  and  amusement;  some  education,  books, 
and  newspapers ;  some  religious  advantages  and  church 
affiliation;  and  some  purely  "social"  intercourse  and 
benefits. 

Even  the  statement  that  we  have  millions  of  paupers 
is  only  figurative.  When  Professor  Ely  put  the  number 
at  three  million  in  1890,  and  Robert  Hunter  made  it 
four  million  in  1904,  they  were  using  the  word  "pauper" 
in  its  technical,  not  in  its  general,  sense.  They  were 
attempting  to  estimate  the  number  of  persons  who  re- 
ceived sustenance  from  charity  for  any  portion  of  the 
year,  however  short.  Since  the  vast  majority  of  these 
persons  suffered  this  hardship  for  only  a  very  brief  period, 
they  were  not  paupers  in  the  general  and  ordinary 
acceptation,  nor  did  their  .condition  approach  that  dire 
need  which  is  suggested  to  the  average  reader  by  state- 
ments like  that  of  Mr.  Hillquit. 

Half-truths.  Under  this  head  comes  my  opponent's 
description  of  the  wastes,  maladjustment,  and  suffering 
involved  in  the  competitive  system.  Even  though  his 
presentation  of  these  evils  were  literally  accurate,  it 
would  not  follow  that  the  system  is  economically  and 
ethically  bankrupt.  Such  a  conclusion  would  not  be 


30  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

justified  until  the  evils  complained  of  had  been  shown 
to  be  greater  than  those  of  any  previous  system,  until 
the  present  system  had  been  proved  incapable  of  improve- 
ment, or  until  a  certainly  better  system  had  been  found. 
None  of  these  conditions  is  met  by  Mr.  Hillquit. 

Economic  conditions  are  better  for  the  masses  than 
they  have  been  at  any  previous  time.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  perhaps  the  poorest  one-tenth,  the  working-classes 
are  better  fed,  clothed,  and  housed,  and  better  provided 
with  economic  goods  generally.  Even  the  "submerged 
tenth"  is  probably  better  fed  and  housed  than  was  the 
corresponding  section  of  the  population  in  the  most 
favourable  period  of  the  past,  namely,  the  later  Middle 
Ages.  The  advances  made  by  all  divisions  of  the 
working-class  since  the  beginning  of  the  capitalist  sys- 
tem, about  a  century  and  a  quarter  ago,  constitute  one 
of  the  commonplaces  of  economic  history. 

Indeed,  Mr.  Hillquit  admits  that,  "on  the  whole,  life 
is  more  propitious  to-day  even  to  the  masses  than  it  was 
at  any  time  in  the  past";  but  he  contends  that  the 
present  system  has  introduced  certain  grave  evils  of  its 
own,  and  has  "failed  to  take  advantage  of  the  available 
forces  of  improvement."  That  the  position  and  liveli- 
hood of  large  sections  of  the  working  population  are  less 
secure  under  the  existing  arrangement  than  in  the  stable 
and  regulated  conditions  of  mediaeval  society,  cannot 
be  doubted;  but  this  defect  is  gradually  diminishing, 
and  it  can  be  entirely  removed  through  the  modern  de- 
vice of  insurance.  That  our  "money  power"  is  a  new 
thing  under  the  sun,  is  likewise  unquestionable ;  yet  it 
does  not  exercise  the  same  minute  control  over  the  lives 
and  liberties  of  the  people  as  the  feudal  aristocracy; 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  31 

besides,  its  sway  can  be  curtailed  or  destroyed  as  soon 
as  the  national  government  seriously  makes  the  at- 
tempt. 

That  we  have  not  taken  "advantage  of  the  available 
forces  of  improvement,"  is  most  lamentably  true;  but 
this  fact  does  not  justify  the  assumption  that  our  eco- 
nomic system  is  incapable  of  so  doing. 

Neither  Mr.  Hillquit  nor  any  other  critic  has  adduced 
positive  evidence  to  show  that  the  present  system  can- 
not be  so  reformed  as  to  eliminate  all  the  genuine  evils 
that  he  denounces.  From  the  progress  made  in  the 
United  States  in  the  last  twenty-five  years  in  the  matters 
of  collective  bargaining  between  employers  and  employees, 
the  protection  of  women  and  children  in  industry,  safety 
and  sanitation  in  work  places,  compensation  for  indus- 
trial accidents,  minimum-wage  legislation,  the  attitude  of 
the  public  and  of  employers  toward  the  rights  and 
claims  of  labour,  the  realization  that  the  main  abuses  of 
economic  power  proceed  not  from  capital,  but  from  privi- 
leged capital,  and  other  significant  changes  —  we  con- 
clude that  our  economic  society  is  neither  retrogressive 
nor  stagnant. 

The  extent  to  which  the  grosser  evils  of  competition 
have  been  removed  through  combination  and  coopera- 
tion gives  some  indication  of  the  immense  progress  that 
is  easily  possible  along  these  lines.  Industrial  crises 
have  steadily  diminished  in  frequency  and  intensity. 
All  these  are  solid,  definite,  and  substantial  gains.  To 
ignore  them  is  unjust.  To  assume  that  they  have  come 
to  an  end  is  unwarranted  and  unscientific. 

My  opponent's  indictment  of  the  existing  order  be- 
comes reasonable  only  on  the  assumption  that  a  perfectly 


32  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

flawless  economic  system  is  practically  attainable.  Such 
a  system  he  thinks  he  has  found  in-  Socialism.  How 
badly  he  is  mistaken  in  this  supposition,  we  shall  see 
in  the  next  and  later  chapters.  In  the  meantime  I  would 
merely  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  "anarchy" 
and  waste  of  the  present  system  may  well  be  a  smaller 
social  evil  than  the  lack  of  individual  liberty  and  incen- 
tive which  are  inseparable  from  a  rigidly  determined 
economico-political  order. 

Is  it  desirable  that  all  workers  should  be  compelled 
to  sell  their  labour  to,  and  all  consumers  forced  to  buy 
their  goods  from,  one  agency,  the  State  ? 

With  regard  to  inadequate  incentive,  Professor  Thor- 
stein  Veblen,  who  is  by  no  means  an  unfriendly  critic 
of  Socialism,  writes :  — 

"While  it  is  in  the  nature  of  things  unavoidable  that 
the  management  of  industry  by  modern  business  methods 
should  involve  a  large  misdirection  of  effort  and  a  large 
waste  of  goods  and  services,  it  is  also  true  that  the  aims 
and  ideals  to  which  this  manner  of  life  gives  effect,  act 
forcibly  to  offset  all  this  incidental  futility.  These 
pecuniary  aims  and  ideals  have  a  very  great  effect,  for 
instance,  in  making  men  work  hard  and  unremittingly, 
so  that  on  this  ground  alone  the  business  system  prob- 
ably compensates  for  any  waste  involved  in  its  working. 
There  seems,  therefore,  no  tenable  ground  for  thinking 
that  the  working  of  the  modern  system  involves  a  cur- 
tailment of  the  community's  livelihood.  It  makes  up 
for  its  wastefulness  by  the  added  strain  which  it  throws 
upon  those  engaged  in  productive  work."  l 

If  we  compare  the  evils  of  our  present  system  with  the 

1  "The  Theory  of  Business  Enterprise,"  p.  65 ;  New  York,  1904. 


SOCIAL  EVILS   AND  REMEDIES  33 

elements  of  an  ideal  economic  order,  we  cannot  condemn 
them  too  strongly;  if  we  compare  them  with  what  in 
the  light  of  experience  seems  to  be  practicable,  we  see 
that  they  are  not  nearly  so  terrible  as  they  appear  in  the 
eloquent  pages  of  Mr.  Hillquit.  Inasmuch  as  he  employs 
the  former  rather  than  the  latter  criterion,  his  picture 
lacks  perspective  and  proportion,  and  gives  us  only  a 
series  of  half-truths. 

The  same  judgment  must  be  passed  on  his  descrip- 
tion of  those  evils  of  present  society  which  are  not  pri- 
marily economic.  Measured  by  the  general  diffusion 
of  culture  among  the  masses,  he  says,  "our  modern  civi- 
lization is  a  miserable  failure."  This  verdict  is  not 
warranted  if  our  standard  of  comparison  is  to  be  the 
achievements  of  the  past  or  an  accurate  interpretation 
of  the  possibilities  of  the  present  and  the  future.  Does 
Mr.  Hillquit  think  that  the  culture  of,  say,  the  university 
professor  could,  through  any  feasible  arrangement  of 
economic  and  social  conditions,  be  brought  within  the 
reach  of  every  human  being  ? 

"Millions  of  mine  workers,  factory  hands,  and  street 
labourers  culturally  still  live  in  the  fifteenth  century." 
Surely  this  is  an  overstatement.  Only  a  small  minor- 
ity of  these  classes,  in  the  United  States  at  least,  are  en- 
tirely without  education,  books,  and  newspapers.  Only 
a  small  minority  of  the  fifteenth-century  populations 
possessed  any  of  these  things.  On  the  whole,  progress, 
very  great  progress,  has  been  made  in  the  task  of  pro- 
viding opportunities  of  culture  for  the  masses. 

According  to  my  opponent,  our  present  industrial 
arrangements  pit  producer  against  consumer,  tenant 


34  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR   MENACE 

against  landlord,  and  worker  against  employer.  To  a 
large  extent  this  is  true.  It  is  also  inevitable.  In  some 
degree  it  would  prevail  even  under  Socialism;  for  the 
producers  of  any  article  would  not  be  identical  with  the 
whole  body  of  its  consumers.  The  former  would  seek 
the  highest  possible  remuneration ;  the  latter  would  for 
the  most  part  desire  to  keep  down  the  price  of  the  article, 
and  therefore  the  wages  of  its  producers.  The  Socialists 
make  a  great  deal  of  this  antagonism  of  interests,  yet  a 
little  reflection  would  show  that  it  could  be  eliminated 
only  by  a  return  to  that  primitive  economy  in  which  each 
man  produces  only  for  himself,  and  buys  nothing  from 
any  one  else. 

Although  much  of  the  current  talk  about  the  harmony 
of  interests  between  employer  and  employee  is  just 
what  Mr.  Hillquit  calls  it,  "conventional  cant,"  his  own 
figure  of  the  wolf  and  the  lamb  is  little  better  than  a 
caricature.  Whether  they  realize  it  or  not,  both  em- 
ployer and  employee  prosper  better  in  the  long  run  by 
so  arranging  their  relations  that  the  total  product  to  be 
divided  between  them  shall  be  as  large  as  possible.  The 
share  of  the  capitalist  will,  in  most  instances,  be  greater 
if  he  establishes  liberal  conditions  of  employment  and 
wages  than  if  he  rigorously  strives  "to  secure  the  maxi- 
mum of  work  for  the  minimum  of  pay." 

That  the  majority  of  employers  have  not  yet  realized 
this  truth  does  not  make  it  an  untruth ;  that  a  constantly 
increasing  number  of  them  is  realizing  it,  shows  that  it 
need  not  remain  forever  undiscovered  by  the  determining 
mass  of  them. 

The  assertion  that  the  toiler  "instinctively  hates  his 
employer"  applies  to  only  a  small  minority  of  the  labour- 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  35 

ing  class.  It  is  inaccurate  to  say  that  " '  industrial  dis- 
putes' are  almost  the  rule";  for  between  no  groups  of 
employers  and  employees  do  they  prevail  most  of  the 
time.  A  fairly  complete  array  of  statistics  shows  that 
in  proportion  to  the  wage-earning  population  strikes  are 
steadily  decreasing.1  The  relations  subsisting  between 
the  average  employer  and  his  employees  during  the 
greater  part  of  any  year  are  no  more  correctly  charac- 
terized by  the  term  "dispute"  than  is  the  relation  be- 
tween the  average  housewife  and  the  keeper  of  the  corner 
grocery. 

Inevitable  difference  of  interests  does  not  imply  con- 
tinual warfare. 

The  demoralizing  influence  of  business,  especially 
"big  business,"  upon  our  political  life  is  summarily, 
though  somewhat  luridly,  sketched  by  Mr.  Hillquit. 
I  shall  not  quarrel  with  his  account  of  the  past,  but  I 
cannot  accept  his  inference  that  no  substantial  improve- 
ment is  visible  or  possible.  To  characterize  the  far- 
reaching  and  fundamental  changes  for  the  better  which 
have  occurred  in  the  last  five  years,  particularly  in  the 
last  presidential  campaign,  as  no  more  than  "greater 
outward  decency"  is  to  substitute  hyperbole  for  literal 
and  accurate  statement. 

Moreover,  my  opponent  takes  no  account  of  the  fact 
that  the  really  formidable  corruption  practised  by  the 
great  corporations  is  quite  as  recent  as  the  corporations 
themselves,  and  that  time  is  required  to  acquaint  the 
people  with  the  new  conditions  and  the  new  dangers. 

1  For  proof  of  this  statement  see  Adams  and  Sumner,  "Labor  Prob- 
lems," p.  180;  New  York,  1905. 


36  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

That  capitalists  will  always  seek  to  corrupt  politicians 
is  true;  but  the  same  will  ever  be  true  of  any  class 
whose  interests  are  affected  by  the  activities  of  govern- 
ment. 

Even  under  Socialism  men  would  still  desire  certain 
good  things,  such  as  larger  incomes  and  better  positions, 
which  would  be  within  the  power  of  political  function- 
aries. And  these  goods  would  be  not  less,  but  more,  im- 
portant to  men  with  moderate  salaries  than  are  increased 
profits  to  the  present-day  capitalists.  The  only  essential 
difference  is  that  the  bribes  would  be  more  numerous 
and  less  liberal. 

According  to  Mr.  Hillquit,  the  press,  the  pulpit,  and 
the  school  are  largely  under  the  influence,  if  not  directly 
in  the  service,  of  the  capitalists.  Taken  as  it  stands, 
this  is  a  gross  overstatement. 

Despite  numerous  and  notorious  instances  to  the  con- 
trary, the  monthly  and  weekly  periodicals  do  not  support 
all  the  main  projects  and  desires  of  Capitalism.  The 
great  daily  newspapers  are,  indeed,  more  subservient; 
yet  a  considerable  portion  of  them  are  independent  on 
many  important  issues,  for  example,  on  the  trusts  and 
the  tariff.  Not  a  little  of  the  recently  aroused  public 
opinion  on  these  subjects,  and  on  the  subject  of  privi- 
leged wealth  generally,  is  due  to  some  of  the  metropolitan 
dailies. 

To  be  sure,  if  my  opponent  merely  means  to  say  that 
the  press  upholds  the  system  of  private  ownership  of 
capital  as  against  Socialism,  he  states  the  truth ;  but  it  is 
not,  after  all,  a  very  illuminating  truth. 

His  assertion  that  the  churches  are  supported  by  the 


SOCIAL   EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  37 

money  interest,  and  that  the  clergy  "deliver  the  mes- 
sage of  Christ  in  the  version  of  the  factory  superintend- 
ent," is  adequately  true  of  only  a  small  minority.  It  is, 
however,  true  of  practically  all  of  them  in  the  sense  that 
they  do  not  preach  the  Gospel  in  the  version  of  Karl 
Marx. 

To  say  that  "the  colleges  and  universities  are  often 
founded,  endowed,  or  supported  by  benevolent  capital- 
ists, on  the  tacit  condition  that  science  is  to  remain  at 
all  times  respectable  and  respectful,"  and  to  imply  that 
this  alleged  condition  is  fulfilled,  is  to  disregard  the  actual 
teaching  of  these  institutions,  particularly  as  given  from 
the  chairs  of  sociology  and  economics.  The  statement 
just  quoted  from  my  opponent  is  evidently  based  entirely 
on  a  priori  grounds. 

His  contention  that  only  the  "exceptionally  vigorous 
spirits"  among  journalists,  clergymen,  and  college  pro- 
fessors resist  "the  corrupting  influences  of  capitalist 
economic  pressure,"  is  one  for  which  he  offers  no  sem- 
blance of  proof.  All  the  evidence  tends  to  show  that 
the  contrary  statement  is  nearer  the  truth;  namely, 
that  it  is  the  men  who  yield  to  these  influences  who 
constitute  the  exceptions  in  these  three  classes. 

His  assertion  that  the  press,  the  school,  and  the  church 
have  for  centuries  failed  to  achieve  anything  worth  while 
toward  remedying  social  evils  is  obviously  pure  rhetoric. 
Let  him  soberly,  and  with  an  eye  single  to  the  facts  of 
history,  eliminate  from  social  progress  the  contributions 
of  these  three  agencies,  and  then  tell  us  what  remains. 

That  the  press,  the  school,  and  the  church  have  not 
removed  all  social  evils  nor  brought  about  ideal  social 
conditions  is  most  true,  but  it  does  not  warrant  the.  state- 


38  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ment  that  they  have  accomplished  practically  nothing, 
nor  the  inference  that  they  will  have  no  success  in  the 
future.  Here,  as  in  so  many  other  parts  of  his  paper, 
my  opponent  has  adopted  an  unreasonable  and  impossible 
criterion  of  achievement. 

To  ascribe  all  the  evils  of  the  present  order  to  a  single 
source,  the  private  ownership  of  capital,  is  neither  ante- 
cedently plausible  nor  justified  by  fact.  It  offers  us  an 
explanation  that  is  entirely  too  simple.  We  are  reminded 
of  the  words  of  Professor  Marshall :  "Nature's  action  is 
complex ;  and  nothing  is  gained  in  the  long  run  by  pre- 
tending that  it  is  simple,  and  trying  to  describe  it  in  a 
series  of  elementary  propositions."1  Inasmuch  as  the 
situation  that  we  are  considering  involves  the  action  and 
interaction  of  rational  and  non-rational  nature  in  a  hun- 
dred different  ways,  we  should  expect  its  causes  and 
problems  to  be  hi  the  highest  degree  complex. 

A  sober  analysis  of  the  facts  shows  that  the  evils  de- 
nounced by  Mr.  Hillquit  are  due  to  Capitalism  only  in 
part,  and  that  even  this  part  is  specifically  chargeable 
not  to  the  system  itself,  but  to  its  abuses.  Many  of  our 
social  wrongs  and  maladjustments  spring  directly  from 
the  limitations  of  human  nature,  such  as  ignorance  and 
greed ;  these  would  exist  and  be  effective  under  any  sys- 
tem whatever.  The  evils  which  are  specifically  trace- 
able to  Capitalism,  for  example,  oppression  of  labour, 
unrighteous  and  unearned  incomes,  and  the  insufficient 
distribution  of  productive  property,  can  all  be  eliminated 
through  measures  of  social  reform. 

According  to  my  opponent,  however,  social  reform 

1  "Principles  of  Economics,"  p.  x;  first  edition. 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  39 

can  afford  only  slight  and  temporary  relief,  and  cannot 
produce  a  "lasting  or  radical  cure."  The  truth  or  un- 
truth of  this  contention  depends  upon  our  definition  of 
terms  and  our  standard  of  achievement.  Measured  by 
any  criterion  taken  from  history  and  experience,  the  im- 
provement in  social  conditions  since  the  rise  of  the  capi- 
talist system  is  not  "slight"  ;  judged  by  all  the  available 
indications  of  our  time,  it  is  not  "temporary."  * 

As  to  the  future,  every  indication  points  to  a  great 
acceleration  of  all  movements  for  specific  reforms.  Such 
will  be  the  normal  result  of  our  increased  knowledge  of 
social  facts,  forces,  and  possibilities,  the  awakening  of 
the  social  conscience,  and  the  enlarged  intelligence,  de- 
termination, and  power  of  the  less  fortunate  classes. 
While  I  agree  with  my  opponent  neither  as  regards  the 
method  nor  the  content  of  a  "radical  and  lasting  cure" 
of  our  social  evils,  I  believe  that  he  is  right  in  his  state- 
ment that  our  natural  and  technical  resources  are  ade- 
quate to  provide  all  our  people  with  abundant  food, 
clothing,  and  housing.  I  believe  that  we  are  moving, 
slowly  indeed,  but  steadily,  toward  this  goal,  and  that 
we  shall  reach  it  not  by  the  futile  way  of  Socialism,  but 
along  the  solid  road  of  social  reform. 

In  the  light  of  past  experience  and  present  knowledge, 
the  direction  of  this  road  seems  to  be  about  as  follows :  — 

The  three  great  economic  defects  of  the  existing  sys- 
tem are:  insufficient  remuneration  of  the  majority  of 
wage-earners;  excessive  incomes  obtained  by  a  small 
minority  of  capitalists;  and  the  narrow  distribution  of 
capital  ownership. 

1  See,  for  example,  the  historical  review  contained  in  Chapter  XIII 
of  "Labor  Problems,"  by  Adams  and  Sumner. 


40  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

For  insufficient  wages  the  essential  and  appropriate 
remedy  is  a  legal  minimum  wage  which  will  prevent  any 
person  from  being  compelled  to  work  for  less  than  the 
equivalent  of  a  decent  livelihood,  including  adequate 
protection  against  all  the  contingencies  of  existence. 
While  awaiting  the  realization  of  this  condition,  the  State 
must  make  legislative  provision  for  insurance  against 
sickness,  accident,  unemployment,  and  old  age,  and  for 
decent  housing  of  all  whose  wages  are  still  inadequate. 

Other  necessary  laws  are  those  which  will  effect  a 
better  adjustment  between  the  supply  of,  and  the  demand 
for  labour,  abolish  improper  forms  and  conditions  of 
female  labour,  prevent  excessive  hours  of  labour  among  all 
classes  of  workers,  make  rational  provision  for  the  ad- 
justment of  industrial  disputes,  and  establish  a  thorough 
and  universal  system  of  industrial  education.  The 
ends  sought  by  all  this  legislation  can  and  should  be 
promoted  by  an  indefinite  increase  in  the  extent  and 
power  of  labour  organizations. 

Excessive  incomes  and  profits  can  be  prevented  through 
the  abolition  of  special  privilege  and  unregulated  monop- 
oly. All  monopolistic  concerns  except  those  which  ex- 
perience will  prove  to  be  natural  and  necessary  must  be 
absolutely  destroyed.  Such  natural  monopolies  as  rail- 
roads, telegraphs,  street  railways,  and  municipal  utilities 
generally  should  be  either  owned  and  operated  by  the 
appropriate  public  authority,  or  so  regulated  that  their 
owners  will  receive  no  more  than  the  prevailing  rate  of 
interest  on  the  actual  value  of  the  property.  If  the 
future  should  demonstrate  that,  even  outside  this  field 
of  public  utilities,  there  are  certain  commodities  which 
can  be  most  economically  produced  under  the  control 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  41 

of  a  monopolistic  concern,  the  State  should  either  fix 
the  maximum  prices  at  which  these  goods  can  be  sold, 
or  become  to  some  extent  a  competitor  in  their  produc- 
tion. A  private  unregulated  monopoly  is  socially  in- 
tolerable. 

Taxes  should  be  gradually  removed  from  production 
and  from  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  placed  upon  land, 
incomes,  and  inheritances.  If  a  considerable  part  of 
the  future  increases  of  land  values  were  appropriated 
through  taxation,  land  would  become  easier  of  access 
to  the  landless,  and  unearned  incomes  would  receive  a 
salutary  check.  As  a  result  of  the  foregoing  measures, 
capital  would  be  automatically  restricted  to  the  prevail- 
ing or  competitive  rate  of  interest  in  all  cases  except 
where  the  capitalist  was  able  to  secure  more  through 
exceptional  personal  efficiency.  In  every  instance, 
therefore,  the  returns  to  the  capitalist  would  not  exceed 
a  fair  and  necessary  payment  for  his  social  services. 

The  narrow  distribution  of  capital  ownership  is  more 
fundamental  than  the  other  two  evils,  because  it  threat- 
ens the  stability  of  the  whole  system.  That  the  majority 
of  the  wage-earners  should,  in  a  country  as  rich  as 
America,  possess  no  income-bearing  property,  have  no 
ownership  in  the  means  of  production,  is  a  gross  anomaly. 
It  is  not  normal,  and  it  cannot  be  permanent.  No 
nation  can  endure  as  a  nation  predominantly  of  hired 
men.  Until  the  majority  of  the  wage-earners  become 
owners,  at  least  in  part,  of  the  tools  with  which  they 
work,  the  system  of  private  capital  will  remain,  in  Hilaire- 
Belloc's  phrase,  "essentially  unstable." 

The  condition  in  which  only  a  minority  of  the  em- 
ployees participate  in  the  ownership  of  the  business  that 


42  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

employs  them,  and  which  puts  the  responsible  direction 
of  industry  into  the  hands  of  a  small  number  of  very 
powerful  persons,  is  a  pathological  condition.  It  already 
threatens  the  life  of  the  present  system. 

To  quote  the  historian  Brooks  Adams :  — 

"The  capitalistic  domination  of  society,  which  has 
prevailed  for  rather  more  than  two  generations,  has 
broken  down,  and  men  of  the  capitalist  type  have  ap- 
parently the  alternative  before  them  of  adapting  them- 
selves to  a  new  environment,  or  of  being  eliminated,  as 
every  obsolete  type  has  always  been  eliminated."  l 

One  of  the  most  important  steps  in  this  process  of  ad- 
justment will  be  the  distribution  of  a  large  measure  of 
capital  ownership  among  the  workers.  This  end  can  be 
attained  in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  but  the  two  main 
types  must  be  copartnership  and  cooperative  societies. 
The  change  will  necessarily  come  slowly,  but  such  has 
been  the  history  of  all  fundamental  and  enduring  im- 
provements. 

As  I  have  already  observed,  a  considerable  part  of  our 
social  evils  are  not  economic,  but  intellectual  and  moral. 
For  these  the  remedies  must  evidently  be  provided 
through  the  mental  and  ethical  education  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  the  sources  of  such  education  are  the  press, 
the  school,  and  the  church.  The  facts  and  relations 
of  industrial  life  must  become  better  known,  the  moral 
law  must  be  more  specifically  applied  to  all  phases  of 
economic  activity,  and  the  social  and  individual  con- 
science must  be  educated  and  quickened. 

1  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  April,  1913,  p."43S- 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  43 

III.  REJOINDER 

BY  MR.   HILLQUIT 

While  I  cheerfully  admit  that  some  of  the  reform 
measures  proposed  by  Dr.  Ryan  are  entirely  sound  and 
highly  desirable,  I  cannot  accept  his  programme  as  an 
adequate  remedy  for  the  existing  economic  evils.  I  con- 
sider it,  furthermore,  quite  unwarranted  to  advance  any 
proposal  of  minor  and  immediate  social  reforms  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  ultimate  Socialist  programme. 

Socialism  is  not  opposed  to  genuine  social  reform. 
Many  of  the  measures  advocated  by  Dr.  Ryan  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  Socialism  are  contained  in  the  Socialist  plat- 
form, and  some  of  them  have  been  first  formulated  by 
Socialists.  The  Socialists  advocate  and  support  every 
measure  calculated  to  better  the  lot  of  the  worker  or  to 
curb  excessive  wealth  or  profits ;  but  they  realize  that  all 
such  reforms  are,  and  in  the  nature  of  things  must  be, 
mere  makeshifts,  useful  but  temporary.  They  consider 
them  in  the  nature  of  palliative  remedies  administered 
to  the  patient  to  soothe  his  pains  and  to  strengthen  his 
system  pending  the  more  radical  treatment  of  the  basic 
disease,  but  entirely  powerless  to  effect  a  complete  cure. 

Let  us  imagine  that  the  programme  of  reforms  advanced 
by  Dr.  Ryan  has  been  fully  realized.  A  minimum  wage 
has  been  established  by  law,  the  length  of  the  workday 
has  been  limited  to  a  reasonable  number  of  hours,  and 
proper  provisions  have  been  made  for  the  relief  of  workers 
in  case  of  sickness,  accident,  unemployment,  and  old 
age.  Is  it  to  be  assumed  that  after  the  enactment  of 
such  reforms  the  workers  would  rest  forever  passive  and 


44  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

contented ;  that  they  would  abandon  all  efforts  toward 
further  betterment,  and  that  the  wheels  of  social  progress 
would  come  to  a  sudden  stop  ? 

By  no  means.  The  capitalist  would  still  make  profits 
from  the  labour  of  the  worker,  the  worker  would  still 
claim  a  larger  share  of  the  product.  This  movement  can- 
not logically  stop  until  such  time  as  complete  social  jus- 
tice shall  be  established  by  returning  to  the  working  pop- 
ulation as  a  whole  the  full  product  of  their  labour  and 
abolishing  all  "workless"  incomes,  except  in  the  shape 
of  public  support  to  the  weak  and  disabled;  in  other 
words,  until  Socialism  shall  be  realized. 

Thus  Dr.  Ryan  and  I  start  from  the  same  premises, 
the  realization  of  the  need  of  radical  social  changes. 
The  difference  between  us  is  the  usual  difference  between 
the  Socialist  and  the  non-Socialist  reformer.  The  former 
endeavours  to  follow  the  path  of  progress  to  the  end, 
while  the  latter  remains  faltering  and  inconclusive, 
trying  to  accomplish  the  impossible  task  of  establishing 
a  terminal  at  an  indefinite  point  in  the  middle  of  the 
road. 

IV.  SURREJOINDER 

BY  DR.   RYAN 

My  opponent  contends  that  many  of  the  proposals 
set  forth  in  my  main  paper  are  contained  in  the  Socialist 
platform,  and  that  some  of  them  were  first  formulated 
by  Socialists.  The  latter  statement  appears  to  me  to 
be  very  doubtful.  Of  late  years  the  Socialist  party 
has  been  fairly  enterprising  in  adopting  among  its 
"immediate  demands"  reform  measures  which  have 


SOCIAL  EVILS  AND  REMEDIES  45 

attained  a  certain  degree  of  popularity,  and  claiming 
them  as  its  own. 

For  example,  the  legal  minimum  wage  has  been  advo- 
cated and  agitated  by  different  groups  of  social  reformers 
for  several  years,  but  it  made  its  first  appearance  in  an 
American  Socialist  platform  in  1912.  When  it  was 
embodied  in  the  Progressive  platform  about  a  month 
later,  some  of  the  leading  Socialists  claimed  that  Roose- 
velt had  stolen  it  from  them  ! 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  German  Socialists  in  the  early 
years  of  their  parliamentary  activity  opposed  some  very 
necessary  social  reforms;  Socialists  everywhere  subor- 
dinate such  measures  to  party  welfare  and  tactics.;  and 
no  Socialist  platform,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  contains  a 
single  reform  proposal  which  was  not  borrowed  from 
non-Socialist  sources.  From  the  Socialist  viewpoint, 
however,  all  these  and  similar  policies  are  consistent  and 
logical. 

The  reformative  principles  and  measures  which  have 
been  sketched  in  my  preceding  article  are  adapted  to 
meet  specifically  all  the  main  abuses  of  our  present  in- 
dustrial system.  In  greater  or  less  degree  they  have 
all  withstood  the  test  of  experience.  They  can  be  made 
effective  as  rapidly  as  is  consistent  with  the  limitations 
of  human  nature,  the  lessons  of  history,  and  justice  to 
all  classes  of  the  community. 

When  their  full  results  have  been  attained;  when  a 
decent  minimum  of  working  and  living  conditions  has 
been  secured  to  all  persons ;  when  the  great  majority  of 
all  the  workers  possess  some  share  in  the  means  of  pro- 
duction ;  when  economic  opportunity  has  become  equi- 
tably distributed,  through  industrial  education  and  the 


46  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

abolition  of  private  monopoly ;  when  no  capital  is  able 
to  get  more  than  the  competitive  or  ordinary  rate  of  in- 
terest; when  unusual  profits  are  possible  only  to  those 
directors  of  industry  who  in  active  competition  with 
their  fellows  can  produce  unusually  large  amounts  of 
product ;  and  when  the  working-class  is  in  a  position  to 
secure  an  ever  increasing  share  of  the  national  product, 
up  to  the  limit  of  industrial  resources  and  social  well- 
being  —  then  there  will  be  nothing  left  of  the  social 
question  except  that  healthy  measure  of  discontent 
which  is  a  condition  of  all  individual  development  and 
social  progress. 

My  opponent  attributes  to  me  the  thought  that,  when 
the  reforms  that  I  have  advocated  had  been  realized, 
social  progress  would  stop  and  the  workers  become 
"passive  and  contented."  But  have  I  not  explicitly  re- 
pudiated that  supposition  in  the  statement  that  the 
workers  would  be  in  a  position  to  go  farther,  and  obtain 
an  indefinitely  increasing  share  of  the  national  product  ? 
How  much  farther  they  would  be  enabled  to  progress, 
I  cannot  tell.  I  am  not  a  prophet.  I  can  only  indicate 
the  next  important  step  which  seems  to  be  continuous 
with  the  past,  and  to  be  authorized  by  experience.  Pos- 
sibly the  process  will  go  on  until  interest  as  we  now  have 
it  will  be  for  the  most  part  abolished.  I  hope  so,  but  I 
believe  that  this  result  will  be  reached  not  through  So- 
cialism, but  through  the  direct  ownership  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  instruments  of  production  by  the  workers 
themselves  by  such  methods  as  copartnership  schemes 
and  cooperative  societies. 

And  I  submit  that  this  will  be  more  democratic,  more 
conducive  to  individual  initiative,  freedom,  and  oppor- 


SOCIAL  EVILS   AND  REMEDIES  47 

tunity,  and  in  a  hundred  ways  more  desirable  than  a 
society  in  which  the  State  has  a  monopoly  of  all  social 
power,  and  in  which  the  individual  can  act  only  through 
the  State. 

Mr.  Hillquit  has,  therefore,  misunderstood  my  Posi- 
tion when  he  says  that  I  would  establish  a  terminar 
social  progress  "at  an  indefinite  point  in  the  middle  ol 
the  road."  I  do  not  attempt  to  fix  a  terminal  anywhere, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  the  facts  do  not  warrant  such 
an  attempt. 

My  opponent  does  set  a  limit  to  industrial  evolution, 
namely,  the  Socialist  State.  In  so  doing  he  abandons 
the  position  of  the  evolutionist  for  that  of  the  Utopian. 
I  am  the  more  consistent  evolutionist  because  I  do  not 
attempt  to  forecast  any  final  or  fixed  industrial  system. 
The  only  Utopia  of  which  I  know  anything  is  on  the  other 
side  of  the  grave. 

My  opponent  contends  that  Socialism  is  the  logical 
and  necessary  outcome  and  terminus  of  industrial  prog- 
ress. I  do  not  see  either  the  necessity  or  the  logic; 
for  I  am  unable  to  accept  the  a  priori  social  philosophy 
which  underlies  Mr.  Hillquit's  social  faith  and  hope. 

We  shall  see  more  of  this  in  a  later  chapter.  In  the 
meantime  I  would  observe  that  this  belief  in  Socialism 
as  the  industrial  finality  is  another  proof  that  the  Social- 
ist is  not  more  but  less  scientific  than  the  social  reformer. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE 
I.  IMMORAL  AND  IMPRACTICABLE 

BY  JOHN  A.   RYAN,   D.D. 

THE  most  important  feature  of  the  many-sided  thing 
that  we  call  Socialism  is  its  proposed  reorganization 
of  industrial  society.  This  is  the  goal  of  Socialist  phi- 
losophy, Socialist  action,  Socialist  hopes.  Is  it  a  desir- 
able goal  ? 

It  would  replace  the  present  system  of  private  owner- 
ship, operation,  and  distribution  by  collective  ownership 
and  operation  of  the  means  of  production,  and  social 
distribution  of  the  product  of  industry.  Let  us  see  in 
some  detail  what  this  involves,  as  applied  to  land  and  to 
capital. 

"The  nearest  approach  to  a  volte-face  which  Socialists 
have  made  since  Marx  has  been  in  relation  to  agrarian- 
ism.  Marx  thought  that  the  advantage  of  concentrating 
capital  would  be  felt  in  agriculture  as  in  other  industries, 
but,  in  spite  of  temporary  confirmation  of  this  view  by 
the  mammoth  farms  which  sprang  up  in  North  America, 
it  now  appears  very  doubtful.  .  .  .  Recognition  of  this 
has  led  reformists  to  substitute  a  policy  of  actively 
assisting  the  peasants  for  the  orthodox  policy  of  leaving 
them  to  succumb  to  capitalism.  Their  formula  is: 

48 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  49 

'Collectivize  credit,  transport,  exchange,  and  all  sub- 
sidiary manufacture,  but  individualize  culture.'"  l 

By  a  referendum  vote  of  two  to  one,  the  Socialist  party 
in  the  United  States  adopted  in  1909  the  following  dec- 
laration :  — 

"...  The  Socialist  party  aims  to  prevent  land  from 
being  used  for  the  purpose  of  exploitation  and  specula- 
tion. It  demands  the  collective  possession,  control, 
or  management  of  the  land  to  whatever  extent  may  be 
necessary  to  attain  that  end.  It  is  not  opposed  to  the 
occupation  and  possession  of  land  by  those  using  it  in  a 
bona-fide  manner  without  exploitation. "  2 

Exploitation,  says  Walling,  m^ansr^the  employment 
of  labourers,  and  this  is  the^entral  point  in  the  Socialist 
policy. " 3  Accordingly,  the  Socialists  of  the  United 
States  would  permit  individual  occupation  and  cultiva- 
tion of  land  by  persons  who  employed  no  labourers. 
Whether  they  would  extend  the  same  privilege  to  farmers 
who  hired  one  or  two  assistants  is  not  certain.  Nor 
is  it  of  great  importance  for  our  discussion. 

According  to  John  Spargo,  only  those  instruments 
which  can  be  owned  and  operated  more  efficiently  by 
the  State  than  by  private  persons  or  corporations  will 
need  to  come  into  the  Socialist  industrial  organization. 
During  the  transition  to  Socialism  any  private  enterprise 
that  can  survive  in  competition  with  the  collectivist 
concern  in  the  same  field  may  remain  undisturbed.4 

Were   this   the   ideal   and   method   of   "revolution" 

1  Ensor,  "Modern  Socialism,"  p.  xxxi. 

2  Cited  by  Walling,  "Socialism  As  It  Is,"  p.  316. 
8  Idem,  p.  311. 

4  Spargo  and  Arner,  "Essentials  of  Socialism,"  pp.  242-270;  New 
York,  1912. 

E 


50  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

accepted  by  the  majority  of  authoritative  Socialists,  we 
should  not  be  much  concerned  about  the  purely  eco- 
nomic theories  and  projects  of  Socialism.  We  should  be 
comforted  by  the  conviction  that,  outside  the  field  of 
natural  monopolies,  the  great  majority  of  industries 
would  be  more  capably  conducted  by  private  than  by 
collective  agencies,  and  that  all  attempts  to  socialize 
them  by  the  method  of  competition  would  inevitably 
fail.  The  average  upholder  of  the  system  of  private 
capital  fears  not  fair  competition  with  State  industries, 
but  forcible  expropriation. 

However,  the  great  majority  of  Socialists  would  prob- 
ably refuse  to  sanction  this  method. 

And  yet  the  dominant  Socialist  thought  of  the  day 
does  seem  to  admit  the  possibility  of  a  considerable 
element  of  private  capital  during  at  least  the  earlier 
period  of  the  new  order.  The  oft-quoted  passage  from 
Kautsky  shows  how  far  even  an  "orthodox"  member 
of  the  party  is  willing  to  go  in  this  direction :  — 

"Nevertheless,  it  may  be  granted  that  the  small 
industry  will  have  a  definite  position  in  the  future  in 
many  branches  of  industry  that  produce  directly  for 
human  consumption;  for  the  machines  manufacture 
essentially  only  products  in  bulk,  while  many  purchasers 
desire  that  their  personal  taste  shall  be  considered.  .  .  . 
The  most  manifold  property  in  the  means  of  production 
—  national,  municipal,  cooperatives  of  consumption 
and  production,  and  private  —  can  exist  beside  each 
other  in  a  Socialist  society;  the  most  diverse  forms  of 
organization  —  bureaucratic,  trades-union,  cooperative, 
and  individual ;  the  most  diverse  forms  of  remuneration 
of  labour  —  fixed  wages,  time  wages,  piece  wages,  par- 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  $1 

ticipation  in  the  economies  in  raw  material,  machinery, 
etc.,  participation  in  the  results  of  intensive  labour; 
the  most  diverse  forms  of  circulation  of  products,  like 
contract  by  purchase  from  the  warehouses  of  the  State, 
from  municipalities,  from  cooperatives  of  production, 
from  the  producers  themselves,  etc.  The  same  mani- 
fold character  of  economic  mechanism  that  exists  to-day 
is  possible  in  a  Socialist  society.  .  .  ."  l 

Substantially  the  same  views  are  expressed  by  Mr. 
Hillquit 2  and  Mr.  Walling.3  As  in  the  matter  of  land, 
however,  so  here,  it  is  not  clear  whether  these  writers, 
or  representative  Socialists  generaUyy-^would  permit 
the  private  producer  under  Socialism  to  employ  a  small 
number  —  say,  one,  two,  or  three  —  of  wage-earners. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  paragraphs,  those  objections 
against  Socialism  which  are  based  on  the  assumption 
that  the  scheme  would  involve  collective  ownership  of 
all,  even  the  smallest  instruments  of  production,  have 
ceased  to  be  pertinent  or  effective.  Antiquated  likewise 
are  the  objections  directed  against  complete  confiscation 
of  all  private  capital ;  collective  ownership  of  all  homes ; 
compulsory  assignment  of  occupations;  equality  of  re- 
muneration; and  the  use  of  labour-checks  instead  of 
money.  So  far  as  I  can  learn,  none  of  these  proposals 
is  now  regarded  by  authoritative  Socialists  as  essential. 

Other  criticisms  of  doubtful  validity  assume  the  im- 
possibility of  forecasting  the  social  demand  for  commodi- 
ties and  of  managing  industries  of  national  magnitude. 
In  some  fashion  both  of  these  difficulties  have  been  met 

1  "The  Social  Revolution,"  pp.  164, 166. 

1  "Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,"  p.  113. 

9  Op.  cit.,p.  432. 


52  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

by  the  great  trusts,  such  as  the  Standard  Oil  Company 
and  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 

I  shall,  therefore,  criticise  only  those  features  of  the  So- 
cialist industrial  programme  which  seem  to  be  inherently 
necessary,  or  which  are  so  regarded  by  the  dominant 
thought  of  the  Socialist  movement  to-day.  All  the  ob- 
jections that  I  shall  urge  may  be  reduced  to  two  proposi- 
tions, one  of  which  is  formally  ethical,  and  the  other  of 
which,  though  immediately  concerned  with  problems 
of  expediency,  is  ethical  fundamentally.  The  former 
has  to  do  with  the  manner  of  abolishing  Capitalism; 
the  latter  with  the  injury  that  would  be  done  to  human 
welfare  and  human  rights  by  an  attempt  to  carry  out  the 
industrial  proposals  of  Socialism. 

According  to  Mr.  Hillquit,  the  majority  of  Socialist 
writers  now  favour  compensation  of  the  displaced  capi- 
talists, instead  of  outright  and  universal  confiscation.1 
But  he  is  careful  to  state  that  they  regard  the  question 
not  as  one  of  justice,  but  only  of  expediency.  Mr. 
Walling  tells  us  that  Socialists  would  not  interfere  with 
savings-bank  accounts,  life-insurance  policies  on  a  rea- 
sonable scale,  nor  very  small  pieces  of  other  property, 
but  that  they  regard  as  a  matter  of  pure  expediency  the 
compensation  of  the  wealthier  classes.2  His  understand- 
ing of  the  Socialist  position  with  reference  to  the  latter 
owners  is  that  they  would  get  at  most  only  modest  an- 
nuities, which  would  cease  with  the  lives  of  their  then 
living  descendants. 

If  it  were  systematically  carried  out,  the  rule  of  paying 
for  the  capital  taken  over  by  the  State  only  when  and  to 

1  Op.  cit.,  pp.  103,  104.  *  Op.  tit.,  p.  429. 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  53 

the  extent  that  this  policy  were  found  to  be  expedient, 
would  undoubtedly  mean  that  many  of  the  small  and 
weak  owners  would  fare  as  badly  as  the  rich  proprietors. 
That  the  principle  of  expediency  would  govern  the  entire 
process  of  expropriation,  is  clearly  seen  from  the  refusal 
of  Socialists  to  commit  themselves  or  the  party  to  a  defi- 
nite programme  of  compensation,  and  from  their  practi- 
cally unanimous  contention  that  only  the  future  can  de- 
termine whether  and  how  much  compensation  shall  be 
allowed. 

In  principle,  then,  the  Socialists  deny  that  the  capi- 
talists have  any  moral  right  to  compensation ;  in  prac- 
tice they  would  carry  out  this  principle  to  the  extent 
dictated  by  expediency. 

This  principle  and  this  proposed  policy  are  undoubtedly 
immoral.  To  ascertain  the  ethical  basis  of  this  con- 
clusion let  us  examine  briefly  the  four  main  sources  of 
capital. 

One  part  is  the  fruit  of  wages  and  salaries,  and  of 
business  gains  or  profits  (as  distinct  from  interest)  re- 
sulting from  exceptional  directive  and  inventive  ability 
in  conditions  of  full  and  fair  competition.  Inasmuch  as 
this  capital  is  specifically  traceable  to  labour,  whether 
physical  or  mental,  it  has  been  honestly  earned,  and  ought 
to  be  paid  for. 

A  second  part  of  existing  capital  originated  in  natural 
resources  and  opportunities,  such  as  lands,  mines,  forests, 
and  franchises,  which  the  State  conceded  to  individuals 
and  corporations  through  the  medium  of  free  and  honest 
contracts.  While  these  grants  and  contracts  may  some- 
times have  been  socially  unwise,  they  are  as  valid  in 
morals  as  similar  acts  of  individuals.  If  at  a  later  date 


54  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

the  State  repudiates  them  by  the  process  of  confiscation, 
it  perpetrates  an  act  of  bad  faith  and  immorality. 

Another  part  is  the  saved  and  invested  proceeds  of 
interest  which  was  obtained  without  paying  unjustly 
low  wages  to  labour  or  charging  unjustly  high  prices  to 
consumers.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Socialist  this  capital 
was  unjustly  acquired  because  the  interest  from  which 
it  sprang  always  represents  a  "part  of  the  product  of 
the  workers'  toil."  For  the  Socialist  maintains  that  all 
interest,  no  matter  how  small  the  rate  or  how  liberally 
its  receiver  has  acted  toward  labourer  and  consumer,  is 
immoral. 

In  reply  to  this  contention,  I  would  say  briefly  that 
interest  on  capital  is  justified  either  because  capital  has 
contributed  a  share  of  the  productive  force  which  is  real- 
ized in  the  joint  product  of  capital  and  labour,  or  because 
under  the  system  of  private  capital  interest  is  necessary 
in  order  to  provide  a  sufficient  amount  of  capital,  or 
because  the  abolition  of  interest  could  not  be  enforced 
in  a  system  of  private  enterprise.  If  the  day  should 
ever  come  when  private  control  of  capital  became  detri- 
mental to  human  welfare,  the  capitalist  would  no  longer 
have  a  right  to  function  as  such;  but  he  would  still 
have  a  valid  claim  to  compensation  for  the  capital  that 
he  had  acquired  through  the  receipt  of  interest  which 
had  been  at  once  free  from  extortion  and  socially  neces- 
sary. The  effect  would  have  the  same  justification  as 
the  cause. 

Finally,  there  is  a  fourth  section  of  capital  which  has 
come  into  being  through  various  forms  of  injustice,  such 
as  physical  force,  fraudulent  contracts,  oppression  of 
labourers,  and  extortion  upon  consumers.  Through  the 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  55 

lapse  of  time,  however,  and  the  other  long-recognized 
conditions  of  prescription,  a  great  part  of  this  capital 
has  become  the  morally  and  legally  valid  property  of 
the  present  owners. 

Prescription  is  a  valid  title  of  ownership  for  the  simple 
reason  that  it  responds  to  the  needs  of  social  and  human 
welfare.  To  disregard  it  in  the  expropriation  process 
would  in  a  very  large  proportion  of  cases  inflict  quite 
as  much  injury  on  innocent  individuals  as^to^iisfegard 
any  of  the  other  titles.  As  to  that  part  of  the  unjustly 
acquired  capital  which  is  not  clothed  with  the  title  of 
prescription,  it  could  properly,  provided  that  identifica- 
tion of  it  were  possible,  be  taken  without  compensation. 

Consequently,  it  is  probable  that  only  a  relatively 
small  part  of  capital  could  be  confiscated  with  reason- 
able certainty  that  the  process  was  not  immoral. 

The  fact  that  governments  have  occasionally  taken 
individual  property  without  compensation  does  not 
justify  the  practice  ethically.  On  the  other  hand,  I  do 
not  mean  to  deny  that  it  is  ever  morally  legitimate,  for 
example,  in  some  supreme  national  crisis  when  no  other 
course  is  physically  possible.  But  it  is  a  far  cry  from  an 
exigency  of  this  magnitude  to  the  Socialist  principle 
of  mere  expediency.  By  the  latter  theory  the  process 
of  confiscation  is  not  required  to  wait  for  a  critical 
situation.  It  can  be  set  in  motion  as  soon  as  there  exists 
a  balance,  however  slight,  of  expediency  in  its  favour. 
Thus  the  Socialist  would  entirely  obliterate  the  distinc- 
tion between  right  and  might. 

In  his  encyclical,  "On  the  Condition  of  Labour,"  issued 
May  15,  1891,  Pope  Leo  XIII  declared  that  Socialism 


56  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

is  to  be  utterly  rejected  because  "contrary  to  the  natural 
rights  of  mankind."  From  the  words  of  the  Latin  text, 
"praedium,"  "terra,"  "fundus,"  "ager,"  "solum,"  etc., 
we  know  that  he  had  in  mind  specifically  the  Socialist 
proposals  with  regard  to  land.  Moreover,  he  was  in  all 
probability  thinking  of  the  more  extreme  plans  of  that 
day,  which  embraced  collective  operation,  as  well  as  col- 
lective ownership,  of  all  the  land  of  a  country. 

A  regime  in  which  all  the  cultivators  should  be  em- 
ployed by  the  State  would  certainly  be  less  conducive 
to  human  welfare  than  a  system  of  full  ownership  and 
secure  possession  by  individuals.  Experience  has  shown 
conclusively  that  the  large  farm  is  considerably  less 
profitable  than  the  small  or  medium-sized  farm.  If 
this  is  the  case  under  the  direction  of  the  private  owner, 
it  would  hold  to  a  greater  extent  under  salaried  manage- 
ment in  a  Socialist  organization. 

Moreover,  the  cultivators  would  not  work  as  intelli- 
gently or  as  energetically  as  they  do  under  the  incentive 
of  private  ownership.  Beyond  all  other  workers,  the 
farmer  is  influenced  by  the  desire  to  own  and  hold  per- 
manently the  thing  upon  which  and  with  which  he  labours. 
Such  a  thoroughgoing  form  of  agrarian  collectivism  would 
undoubtedly  be  detrimental  to  individual  and  social 
welfare. 

Therefore,  it  would  be  a  violation  of  natural  rights. 
As  against  other  individuals  and  the  State,  man  has 
an  inborn  right  to  control  and  use  the  bounty  of  nature 
in  the  way  that  will  best  secure  the  requisites  of  reasonable 
life  and  self-development.  That  the  existing  system  has 
not  yet  enabled  all  individuals  to  attain  this  object  does 
not  prove  that  it  is  not  better  adapted  for  the  purpose 


57 

than  Socialism ;  particularly  when  we  consider  its  recent 
history,  its  present  trend,  and  its  inherent  capacity  for 
improvement. 

Even  the  modified  agrarian  programme  of  Socialism 
contains  elements  which  involve  a  violation  of  individual 
rights.  Precisely  how  far  this  programme  would  extend 
the  individual  control  of  "land  of  reasonable /dimensions 
actually  cultivated  or  used  by  the  farmer  without-em—^ 
ployment  of  hired  help  to  any  appreciable  extent,"  is 
not  easy  to  say ;  for  the  desire  to  make  converts  among 
the  fanners  has  brought  American  Socialists  to  a  situa- 
tion in  which  "  there  is  a  minority  ready  to  compromise 
everything  in  this  question." l  However,  they  still 
seem  to  cling  to  the  doctrine  that  the  title  to  all  land  must 
remain  with  the  State. 

This  would  mean  that  the  State  could  turn  out  the 
small  farmer  at  any  time  deemed  expedient,  and  could, 
even  while  it  allowed  him  to  remain  in  possession,  tax 
the  land  at  its  full  rental  value. 

That  the  majority  of  American  Socialists  would  have 
the  State  adopt  the  latter  policy  consistently  from  the 
beginning,  seems  to  be  clear  in  view  of  the  declarations 
of  the  "Communist  Manifesto,"  of  Marx,  and  of  other 
leading  members  of  the  party,  and  in  view  of  the  general 
Socialist  principle  which  condemns  private  receipt  of 
rent  and  interest.2 

Now  State  retention  of  the  title  means  uncertainty 
of  tenure,  and  therefore  injury  to  the  cultivator,  while 
the  appropriation  of  economic  rent  means  confiscation  of 
property  values. 

1  Walling,  op.  tit.,  p.  318. 

2  Cf.  Walling,  op.  cit.,  pp.  322,  323. 


58  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

So  much  for  the  morality  of  the  Socialist  programme  with 
regard  to  land.  The  proposals  of  the  party  concerning 
artificial  capital  are  somewhat  more  satisfactory  to  dis- 
cuss because  they  have  been  more  definitely  and  author- 
itatively formulated.  Their  ethical  character  can  be 
determined  only  through  an  examination  of  their  bearing 
upon  human  welfare.  This  is  the  ultimate  test  of  the 
morality  of  any  social  system.  In  the  matter  of  social 
institutions,  moral  values  and  genuine  expediency  are 
in  the  long  run  identical.  The  remainder  of  this  paper 
will,  therefore,  deal  immediately  with  the  practical  side 
of  the  socialist  industrial  order. 

Under  Socialism  the  great  national  industries,  as  steel 
and  petroleum,  would  be  under  the  immediate  direction 
of  commissions  or  boards  of  managers.  Owing  to  the 
number  of  these  bodies  and  the  varied  character  of  their 
functions,  they  could  not  be  selected  with  advantage  by 
general  popular  vote.  Conceivably  they  might  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  national  executive  authority,  but  it  is 
unlikely  that  the  people  would  intrust  any  group  of 
officials  with  this  tremendous  power. 

Such  an  arrangement  would  enable  a  few  men  to  con- 
trol not  merely  the  political,  but  the  entire  industrial, 
life  of  the  nation,  to  build  up  a  bureaucracy  more  despotic 
than  anything  of  the  kind  that  the  world  has  ever  seen, 
to  impose  whatever  harsh  conditions  they  saw  fit  upon  a 
minority,  yes,  upon  a  majority  occasionally,  of  the  indus- 
tries and  workers,  and  to  fortify  themselves  in  a  position 
from  which  they  could  not  be  dislodged  except  by  a  rev- 
olution. 

Present  Socialist  opinion  seems  to  favour  selection  of 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  59 

the  commissions  by  the  workers  in  each  industry.  Even 
this  method  has  its  own  difficulties.  In  the  first  place, 
the  great  mass  of  employees  in,  for  example,  the  steel 
industry  would  be  much  less  competent  to  make  an  in- 
telligent choice  than  is  the  relatively  small  number  of 
stockholders  who  at  present  determine  the  outcome  of 
an  election  for  the  board  of  directors. 

The  case  is  not  parallel  with  the  choice  of  political 
officials.  It  is  a  question  of  getting  technical  experts, 
and  even  the  most  democratic  among  us  now  realize  that 
such  functionaries  should  be  appointed  by  the  mayor, 
governor,  or  President,  instead  of  being  elected  by  popu- 
lar vote. 

In  the  second  place,  while  the  stockholders  of  a  corpora- 
tion have  a  direct  pecuniary  incentive  to  choose  the  most 
efficient  directors  obtainable,  the  workers  in  a  Socialist 
industry  would  desire  men  who  would  make  working 
conditions  easy,  rather  than  men  who  would  be  bent 
upon  getting  out  the  maximum  amount  of  product. 

Owing  to  the  dependence  of  the  industrial  direction 
upon  the  mass  of  the  workers,  and  owing  to  the  absence 
of  certain  powerful  incentives,  the  Socialist  organization 
of  industry  would  be  inefficient  and  unprogressive. 
Directors,  superintendents,  foremen,  and  all  others  in 
managerial  positions  would  be  afraid  to  punish  loafing 
or  to  exercise  the  power  of  discharge,  except  in  rare  and 
flagrant  cases.  Even  if  they  were  sufficiently  fearless 
to  exact  a  reasonable  amount  of  work  from  all  their 
subordinates,  they  would  lack  the  normal  and  necessary 
incentive  to  such  a  course,  and  to  efficient  management 
generally.  They  would  not  have  the  stimulus  of  com- 

1  Cf.  Hillquit,  op.  cit.,  p.  142. 


60  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

petition  which  to-day  prevents  public  concerns  from  fall- 
ing too  far  behind  those  under  private  control ;  nor  the 
vital  interest  in  their  tasks  which  arises  from  ownership 
and  its  opportunities  of  pecuniary  gain ;  nor  the  hope 
of  promotion  and  fear  of  discharge  which  operate  so 
promptly  and  powerfully  in  the  present  system. 

The  general  spirit  of  the  management  would  be  to  "let 
well  enough  alone,"  to  refrain  from  disturbing  either  the 
personnel  or  the  methods  of  industry,  so  long  as  things 
moved  on  in  the  old  routine  way  and  continued  to  ap- 
proximate a  certain  level  of  mediocrity. 

Indeed,  the  deadening  effect  of  the  absence  of  compe- 
tition has  already  appeared  in  the  management  of  our 
present  "socialized"  industries.  In  every  great  industry 
there  is  a  maximum  size  of  plant  which  is  efficient  and 
economical,  and  a  maximum  number  of  plants  which  can 
be  profitably  combined  under  a  single  direction.  Mr. 
Brandeis  has  shown  that  in  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation  the  lack  of  competition  has  more  than  offset 
the  gains  of  combination,  while  Professor  Meade  sums 
up  the  general  failure  of  the  trusts  thus :  — 

"During  a  decade  of  unparalleled  industrial  develop- 
ment, the  trusts,  starting  with  every  advantage  of  large 
capital,  well-equipped  plants,  financial  connections,  and 
skilled  superintendence,  have  not  succeeded." 

If  this  can  happen  when  the  management  is  financially 
interested  in  the  business,  it  would  prevail  to  a  far 
greater  degree  in  the  absence  of  this  powerful  stimulus. 
The  driving  force  of  competition  and  the  hope  of  prompt 
pecuniary  rewards  can  be  supplemented,  but  not  sup- 
planted, by  other  and  loftier  motives  and  stimuli. 

1  The  Journal  of  Political  Economy,  April,  1912,  p.  366. 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  6 1 

In  the  field  of  industrial  invention  the  lack  of  adequate 
incentive  would  be  particularly  harmful.  Men  who 
were  capable  of  inventing  new  machines,  new  processes, 
new  ways  of  combining  capital  and  labour  could  expect 
neither  the  gains  that  are  obtainable  under  the  system 
of  private  ownership,  nor  that  prompt  and  eager  recogni- 
tion by  the  industrial  authorities  which  is  such  a  con- 
spicuous feature  of  privately  directed  concerns. 

It  is  contended  that  the  manager  and  the  inventor  will 
be  impelled  to  bring  out  the  best  that  is  in  them  by  the 
hope  of  public  honour  and  recognition,  and  by  the  special 
pecuniary  compensations  that  will  be  possible  even  under 
Socialism.  The  example  of  Colonel  Goethals,  who  has 
successfully  directed  the  building  of  the  Panama  Canal 
on  a  relatively  moderate  salary,  is  cited  by  way  of  illus- 
tration. 

It  merely  illustrates  a  typical  Socialist  fallacy,  namely, 
that  what  the  exceptional  man  does  in  exceptional  cir- 
cumstances will  be  done  by  the  ordinary  man  in  ordinary 
circumstances.  Colonel  Goethals  is  an  officer  in  the 
army.  Now  the  traditions  and  training  of  the  army 
have  for  centuries  impressed  upon  its  members  strong 
conceptions  of  public  service,  honour,  and  professional 
duty  and  responsibility.  Moreover,  the  task  upon 
which  he  is  engaged  is  conspicuous  beyond  all  others, 
and  without  any  competitor  for  public  honour  and 
esteem. 

To  assume  that  the  average  member  of  an  industrial 
board  of  managers,  the  average  factory  superintendent, 
or  the  average  floor-walker  in  a  store  would  respond 
as  readily  to  the  motive  of  public  honour  as  the  army 
officer,  and  that  the  everyday  activities  of  the  tens  of 


62  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

thousands  of  men  in  positions  of  industrial  authority 
would  attract  sufficient  public  notice  and  recognition 
to  be  worth  seeking  or  considering  —  implies  a  childlike 
faith  that  is  touching  but  not  convincing.  The  cold 
fact  is  that  there  would  not  be  enough  public  honour  and 
recognition  to  go  round  the  circle  of  industrial  manage- 
ment, or  it  would  have  to  be  spread  so  thinly  that  very 
few  of  its  beneficiaries  would  hold  it  very  precious. 

As  to  the  special  pecuniary  rewards  that  might  be 
given,  they  would  lose  much  of  their  effectiveness  be- 
cause of  tardiness  in  arriving.  Merit  is  much  more 
promptly  recognized  in  private  than  in  public  employ- 
ments, on  account  of  the  direct  financial  interest  of  those 
from  whom  the  recognition  must  come. 

Since  the  great  mass  of  the  workers  would  have  the 
ultimate  control  over  the  management  and  managers 
of  industry,  they  would  strive  to  make  the  conditions  of 
employment  as  pleasing  as  possible  to  themselves.  This 
would  mean  that  the  majority  of  them  would  prefer  an 
industrial  administration  which  would  permit  a  consider- 
able amount  of  "loafing  on  the  job,"  and  which  would 
separate  them  from  their  jobs  only  in  the  most  flagrant 
cases  of  shirking  and  inefficiency.  Engaged  as  they 
must  be  upon  tasks  which  are  monotonous,  mechanical, 
and  relatively  uninteresting,  the  great  majority  would  be 
impervious  to  the  "joy  of  work,"  would  fail  to  find  that 
pleasure  and  work  were  one,  and  would  see  no  good  reason 
for  putting  forth  anything  like  the  degree  of  effort  that 
is  to-day  exacted  under  penalty  of  discharge. 

This  reasoning  is  not  based  on  "the  theological  con- 
ception that  the  sole  human  incentive  to  do  right  is  the 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  63 

fear  of  punishment  or  the  hope  of  reward."  In  the  first 
place,  there  is  no  such  conception;  for  the  theologian 
gives  full  recognition  to  the  existence  and  efficacy  of 
higher  motives.  But  he  is  not  afraid  to  look  facts  in  the 
face,  and  to  read  therein  the  lesson  that  the  higher  mo- 
tives can  neither  entirely  supplant  nor  even  reduce  to 
a  secondary  position  the  motives  of  reward  and  punish- 
ment in  the  mind  and  will  of  the  average  man.  The 
theologian  is  sufficiently  scientific  to  put  a  higher 
value  upon  universal  experience  than  upon  enthusiastic 
hopes. 

The  contention  that  the  worker  will  find  sufficient 
incentive  of  a  material  character  in  being  "a  partner 
in  the  industrial  enterprise  in  which  he  will  be  employed  " 
is  based  on  the  fallacy  that  remote  and  general  interests 
affect  the  individual  as  powerfully  as  immediate  and  spe- 
cific interests.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  "part- 
nership" in  a  Socialist  industry,  which  after  all  is  owned 
by  the  State,  and  ownership  of  a  definite  portion  of  a 
private  industry. 

In  the  latter  case  the  worker  realizes  that  his  energy 
and  efficiency  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  his  income; 
in  the  former  he  knows  that  he  may  take  things  easy 
and  still  retain  his  place  and  his  stipulated  remunera- 
tion. Although  he  may  be  convinced  that  in  the  long 
run  the  policy  of  universal  shirking  will  be  harmful 
to  his  industry,  he  feels  that  the  "long  run"  is  too  long 
and  too  remote  to  offset  the  immediate  and  practical  ad- 
vantages of  being  as  lazy  as  he  dares  to  be.  Besides, 
he  expects  that  there  will  be  other  industries  and  other 
jobs  in  the  limitless  expanse  of  Socialist  economy.  And 
he  has  no  assurance  that  if  he  were  to  put  forth  his  best 


64  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

efforts,  his  example  would  be  generally  imitated  by  his 
fellows  in  his  own  or  in  other  industries. 

To  the  average  worker,  partnership  in  a  Socialist 
industry  would  seem  about  as  important  as  efficient 
local  or  national  government  seems  to  the  average  citi- 
zen. The  latter  is  much  less  interested  in  civic  welfare 
than  in  his  job,  business,  or  profession. 

To  the  objection  that  his  scheme  has  never  been  justi- 
fied by  actual  trial,  the  Socialist  sometimes  replies  by 
pointing  to  the  successful  cooperative  establishments 
under  democratic  management  in  Belgium,  Germany, 
and  England.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  history  of  the 
cooperative  movement  in  its  entirety  furnishes  a  rather 
strong  argument  against  Socialism.  Practically  all  the 
successful  efforts  in  this  field  have  been  in  connection 
with  cooperatives  of  distribution.  Cooperative  produc- 
tion has  been  attempted  hi  many  countries,  but  "the 
record  on  the  whole  is  one  of  failure."  * 

The  simple  and  sufficient  reason  is  that  these  enter- 
prises are  much  more  complicated  and  require  a  much 
higher  quality  of  leadership  and  management  than  dis- 
tributive concerns.  As  yet,  not  many  of  the  men  who 
possess  these  qualities  can  be  induced  to  exercise  them 
without  the  spur  of  a  dominating  pecuniary  interest  in 
the  establishment. 

Nevertheless,  I  believe  that  a  sufficient  number  of  such 
men  will  in  time  be  found  to  direct  cooperative  enterprises 
over  a  considerable,  though  restricted,  part  of  the  field 
of  production.  This  result  can  be  reached  only  very 

^aussig,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  vol.  n,  p.  356;  New  York, 
1912. 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  65 

gradually,  through  appropriate  industrial  and  moral 
enlightenment.  And  it  will,  I  believe,  be  realized  only 
in  the  smaller  industries,  those  in  which  the  individual 
worker  can  easily  see  that  his  actions  will  have  a  vital 
and  direct  bearing  on  the  success  of  the  whole  enter- 
prise. In  the  larger  industries  labour  participation  in 
capital  ownership  will  necessarily  take  the  form  of  co- 
partnership. That  is,  the  worker  will  be  a  shareholder 
rather  than  a  genuine  cooperator. 

Even  if  productive  cooperation  had  been  invariably 
successful,  it  would  not  be  of  much  value  as  an  argument 
for  Socialism.  The  differences  between  the  two  are 
more  important  than  the  resemblances.  In  the  former 
each  of  the  workers  has  direct  ownership  of  a  definite 
share  of  the  concern,  and  an  immediate  pecuniary  inter- 
est in  its  profits  and  its  fortunes.  Moreover,  he  realizes 
that  it  must  compete  with  similar  enterprises  under 
both  cooperative  and  private  control.  Under  Socialism 
none  of  these  conditions  is  verified.  The  worker  is  in- 
terested only  in  his  job  and  his  wages. 

Of  these  the  first  depends  ultimately  upon  a  board  of 
managers  chosen  by  the  workers  themselves,  while  the 
second  is  fixed  beforehand  by  the  central  executive  or 
legislative  authority,  and  is  only  remotely  and  feebly 
dependent  upon  the  conduct  of  the  individual  labourer. 
Consequently,  the  interest  of  the  labourer  in  the  financial 
success  of  his  industry  is  very  general  and  very  remote 
as  compared  with  that  of  the  participant  in  a  cooperative 
concern. 

To  sum  up  the  preceding  paragraphs:  Competition, 
the  hope  of  definite  personal  reward,  and  the  fear  of  defi- 
nite personal  loss,  which  experience  has  shown  to  be 


66  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

extremely  powerful  forces  in  economic  life,  would  either 
disappear  or  be  greatly  diminished  under  Socialism. 
And  the  Socialist  is  unable  to  provide  adequate  substi- 
tutes. 

In  the  present  economic  organization,  the  farmer, 
labourer,  manufacturer,  merchant,  etc.,  are  not  compelled 
to  deal  as  buyers  or  as  sellers  \vith  any  single  individual 
or  association.  Nor  are  they  constrained  in  the  majority 
of  instances  to  accept  or  to  pay  a  predetermined  price. 
Through  the  process  of  bargaining  they  can  exercise 
some  control  over  this  supremely  important  economic 
factor.  While  the  trusts  have  greatly  curtailed  the  bar- 
gaining power  of  the  individual  with  regard  to  many 
commodities,  they  will  cease  to  do  so  just  as  soon  as  the 
people  and  the  government  seriously  and  systematically 
undertake  the  task  of  checking  them.  This  task  has  not 
yet  been  fairly  begun. 

Under  Socialism  all  prices,  whether  of  labour  or  of 
goods,  except  in  the  relatively  unimportant  individual 
and  cooperative  enterprises,  would  be  fixed  beforehand 
by  the  public  authorities.  For  the  great  majority  of 
workers,  wages  and  all  other  conditions  of  employment 
would  be  determined  by  legislative  or  executive  enact- 
ment of  the  national  or  local  governments.  There  could 
be  no  competition  in  this  field  between  the  two  govern- 
mental jurisdictions.  Hence  the  labourer  would  be  com- 
pelled to  work  for  practically  one  employer.  As  con- 
sumers, men  would  have  to  purchase  at  a  predetermined 
price  from  a  single  seller,  and  to  take  the  kind  and  quality 
of  goods  that  the  public  authorities  saw  fit  to  produce. 

At  present  a  man  can  get  anything  that  he  has  the 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  67 

money  to  pay  for.  A  Socialist  regime  would  feel  no  in- 
ducement to  develop  new  wants  nor  to  satisfy  old  ones 
in  new  ways.  The  tendency  would  be  overwhelming 
to  turn  out  only  the  old  and  standard  kinds  of  goods. 
The  combined  effect  of  all  these  restrictions  on  the  buying 
and  selling  power  of  the  individual  would  be  disastrous 
to  self-respect,  self-development,  social  contentment, 
and  social  stability. 

To  be  sure,  the  ultimate  control  of  all  these  industrial 
arrangements  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  who 
could  correct  all  possible  abuses.  In  practice,  however, 
the  people  always  means  a  part  of  the  people.  In  the 
Socialist  State  the  majority  would  have  unlimited  power 
over  not  merely  the  political,  but  also  the  economic,  wel- 
fare of  the  minority.  To-day  industrial  life  is  controlled 
by  the  government  or  the  majority  only  indirectly,  and 
within  well-defined  limits.  A  hundred  checks  and  coun- 
terchecks are  set  up  by  private  individuals,  private 
associations,  private  institutions.  Under  Socialism  all 
these  safeguards  would  disappear,  and  substantially 
all  social  power  would  be  concentrated  in  the  Leviathan, 
the  Omnipotent  State. 

The  prediction  that  "there  will  be  no  fixed  majorities 
and  minorities  in  all  matters,"  is  not  reassuring  in  view 
of  the  inevitable  contrary  tendency.  A  majority  com- 
posed of  all  the  workers  in  the  most  powerful  industries 
could  combine  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  all  wages  and 
prices  to  favour  themselves  and  oppress  the  minority. 
Such  a  combination  would  be  remarkably  cohesive  and 
homogeneous,  since  it  would  represent  the  interests  of 
all  its  members  in  the  matters  of  politics,  industry,  the 
schools,  and  the  press.  Its  personnel  could  easily  re- 


68  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

main  substantially  unchanged  until  it  and  the  entire 
system  was  dissolved  in  a  revolution. 

To  assert  that  at  present "  the  capitalist  minority  domi- 
nates the  non-capitalist  majority  in  all  matters,"  is  to 
ignore  the  immense  gains  made  by  the  masses  on  the 
classes  in  the  past,  the  very  real  limitations  upon  capi- 
talist power  to-day,  and  the  far  greater  restrictions  that 
can  and  will  be  put  upon  it  to-morrow,  without  recourse 
to  the  other  autocracy  called  Socialism.  We  are  not 
compelled  to  choose  between  the  latter  and  a  rampant 
Capitalism. 

Who  is  to  own  the  printing-press?  The  danger  of 
handing  them  all  over  to  the  national  Socialist  authorities 
is  recognized  by  Kautsky :  — 

"It  is  true  that  the  governmental  power  will  cease  to 
be  a  class  organ,  but  will  it  not  still  be  the  organ  of  a 
majority  ?  Can  the  intellectual  life  be  made  dependent 
upon  the  decisions  of  a  majority  ?"  1 

In  this  field,  at  least,  he  admits  that  "the  people"  is 
not  a  homogeneous  entity,  that  the  interests  of  all  its 
parts  are  not  identical.  He  would  restrict  the  power  of 
the  national  majority  by  placing  a  party  of  the  machinery 
of  printing  and  publication  under  the  control  of  munic- 
ipalities and  of  cooperative  associations.  But  the  cities 
would  likewise  be  dominated  by  the  majority,  while  the 
cooperative  societies  would  require  every  worker  to  be 
also  a  partial  owner. 

No  individual  could  own  or  publish  a  newspaper,  be- 
cause he  would  not  be  permitted  to  "exploit"  the  num- 
ber of  workers  necessary  to  operate  the  establishment. 

lOp.  cit.,  p.  177. 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  69 

No  group  of  individuals  could  do  so  unless  they  included 
a  sufficient  force  of  labourer-proprietors.  From  the  view- 
point, not  of  the  individuals  who  might  desire  to  own 
newspapers,  but  of  social  welfare,  these  restrictions 
would  constitute  a  very  dangerous  limitation  upon  the 
freedom  of  printed  expression. 

While  Socialists  do  not  explicitly  demand  that  all  edu- 
cation should  be  given  in  State  schools,  they  would 
evidently  look  with  favour  upon  such  an  arrangement. 
"Compulsory  attendance  at  public  national  schools," 
which  is  among  the  articles  of  the  "Erfurt  Programme," 
would  seem  to  leave  little  scope  for  private  schools  of 
any  sort.1  When  the  average  Socialist  discusses  educa- 
tion in  his  future  state,  he  is  rarely  able  to  conceal  his 
intention  that  there  shall  be  only  one  kind  of  school  and 
one  kind  of  scholastic  training.  This  would  be  the  most 
blighting  of  all  State  monopolies. 

To  resume  the  main  contentions  and  conclusions  of 
this  article :  The  Socialist  Industrial  State  must  be  set 
down  as  immoral,  inasmuch  as  it  involves  the  doctrine 
that  compensation  to  capitalists  is  a  matter  of  mere  ex- 
pediency, and  because  it  would  prove  economically,  polit- 
ically, and  intellectually  injurious  to  individual  and  social 
welfare. 

II.  A  JUST  AND  RATIONAL  ORDER 

BY  MORRIS  HILLQUIT 

It  is  a  pessimistic  and  uninviting  picture  which  Dr. 
Ryan  sketches  under  the  title,  "The  Socialist  Industrial 

1  Cf .  the  comments  of  Liebknecht  on  this  demand  in  "Socialism: 
What  It  Is  and  What  It  Seeks  to  Accomplish,"  pp.  56-58. 


70  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

State."  But  does  the  fault  lie  with  the  Socialist  plan  of 
industrial  organization,  or  is  it  to  be  found  in  the  glasses 
through  which  my  distinguished  opponent  views  it  ? 

A  concise  statement  of  the  Socialist  industrial  pro- 
gramme will  help  to  answer  that  question. 

Socialism  stands  for  the  collective  ownership  of  the  social 
tools  of  work.  Let  us  consider  the  two  adjectives  in 
this  definition  in  their  inverse  order. 

A  social  tool  is  one  used  in  the  modern  process  of  whole- 
sale production  and  distribution  of  commodities.  As  a 
rule,  it  is  bulky,  complex,  and  costly.  The  individual 
tool,  on  the  other  hand,  is  independent  and  self-sufficient. 
It  is  usually  simple  and  inexpensive. 

The  distinction  is  vital,  for  the  main  raison  d'etre  of 
the  modern  Socialist  movement  rests  on  the  compara- 
tively recent  change  in  the  character  of  the  tool,  from 
individual  into  social. 

Factory  work  and  other  forms  of  mass  production,  as 
well  as  the  prevailing  system  of  wholesale  distribution 
of  commodities,  are  of  very  modern  origin,  and  they  are 
all  based  on  the  introduction  of  the  social  tool.  The  pre- 
capitalist era  is  one  of  individual  tools,  independent 
producers,  and  direct  personal  dealing. 

The  mechanic  of  the  eighteenth  century  plies  his  trade 
in  his  home  or  in  a  small  workshop ;  alone,  or  with  one 
or  more  apprentices.  He  owns  the  tools  of  his  trade 
and  the  raw  material.  He  works  for  the  "customer" 
with  whom  he  makes  his  own  bargain ;  he  goes  through 
the  entire  process  of  manufacture,  and  his  success  and 
prosperity  depend  solely  on  his  own  skill  and  industry. 

But  gradually  the  modern  machine  makes  its  appear- 
ance, and  the  industrial  structure  of  society  and  the  social 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  71 

relations  of  men  are  thoroughly  revolutionized.  The  huge 
steam-  or  electricity-driven  machine,  the  "iron  work- 
man" of  colossal  frame,  unerring  aim,  and  a  hundred 
indefatigable  arms  throws  the  helpless  individual  tool 
of  former  generations  into  the  scrap-heap ;  it  shatters 
the  private  workshop,  and  destroys  the  independence 
of  the  worker. 

The  modern  machine  creates  the  factory,  and  the 
factory  assembles  under  its  roof  the  toolless  artisans 
and  mechanics,  stripping  them  of  their  economic  indi- 
viduality and  drilling  them  into  an  industrial  army  of 
uniform  rank  and  collective  functions.  And  what  the 
factory  does  in  the  field  of  production,  the  railroad  and 
steamboat  accomplish  with  equal  thoroughness  in  the 
sphere  of  distribution. 

Henceforward  the  worker  is  separated  from  the  tool.  He 
cannot  pay  the  high  cost  of  modern  machinery  and  equip- 
ment, and  it  would  avail  him  little  if  he  could,  because 
machine  industry  is  not  adapted  to  individual  operation. 
The  logical  solution  of  this  predicament  would  seem  to 
be  the  joint  ownership  of  all  such  machinery  by  all  of  the 
workers,  or,  what  amounts  to  the  same,  by  the  entire 
nation  organized  for  the  management  and  control  of 
social  production. 

As  the  countless  individual  tools  have  gradually  be- 
come merged  in  the  one  great  system  of  modern  social 
machinery,  so  should  the  tool-ownership  of  the  individual 
workers  converge  in  the  collective  ownership  by  the  en- 
tire working  fraternity.  In  other  words,  the  ownership 
and  control  of  modern  machinery  should  be  socialized, 
just  as  its  use  and  operation  have  been  socialized  by  the 
inherent  forces  of  industrial  development. 


72  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

This  is  the  claim  of  Socialism. 

It  is  a  claim  based  entirely  on  the  social  character  of 
the  modern  tool,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning  it  extends 
only  so  far  as  the  tools  are  social  in  character.  Socialism 
demands  the  collective  ownership  and  social  operation  of 
such  industries  as  depend  on  the  use  of  social  tools  and 
are  organized  on  the  basis  of  collective  work ;  it  is  not 
concerned  with  purely  individual  pursuits  or  vocations. 

The  Socialist  programme  does  not  involve  a  centralized 
national  organization  for  the  management  of  the  indus- 
trial processes  of  the  country.  The  plan  of  collective 
ownership  and  operation  is  quite  consistent  with  a  system 
of  graded  authority  and  divided  functions  in  accordance 
with  the  peculiar  situation  and  requirements  of  each  in- 
dustry. Thus  the  national  government  might  well  own 
and  operate  all  means  of  interstate  transportation  and 
communication,  such  as  railroad  systems  and  telegraph 
and  telephone  lines;  all  sources  of  general  national 
wealth,  such  as  mines,  forests,  and  oil  wells;  and  all 
monopolized  or  trustified  industries  already  organized  on 
a  basis  of  national  operation. 

Similarly,  the  state  government  might  assume  the  few 
industries  confined  within  state  limits ;  while  the  munic- 
ipal government  would  logically  undertake  the  manage- 
ment of  the  much  wider  range  of  peculiarly  local  busi- 
ness, such  as  street  transportation  and  the  supply  of 
water,  light,  heat,  and  power. 

Still  other  local  industries,  too  insignificant  or  un- 
organized even  for  municipal  operation,  might  be  left 
to  voluntary  cooperative  enterprises  under  proper  regu- 
lations for  the  protection  of  the  cooperators  and  the  con- 
sumers, while,  as  Dr.  Ryan  quite  properly  states,  a  large 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  73 

number  of  purely  individual  trades  and  callings  might 
continue  to  be  exercised  by  private  individuals  or  con- 
cerns in  competition  with  each  other  —  so  long  as  their 
operation  does  not  involve  the  exploitation  of  labour. 

Nor  does  the  Socialist  plan  of  industrial  organization 
contemplate  a  centralization  of  plants  "under  a  single 
direction"  for  every  great  industry.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  Socialist  programme  or  plan  of  industrial  organization 
that  would  prevent  the  management  of  any  industry 
from  several  independent  or  coordinate  centres,  if  such 
management  should  prove  more  profitable  and  efficient. 

And,  finally,  the  proposed  socialization  of  industries 
does  not  necessarily  involve  the  method  of  confiscation. 
The  people  could  well  afford  to  compensate  the  capi- 
talists to  the  full  extent  of  the  actual  value  of  their  in- 
dustrial properties.  The  national  indebtedness  created 
by  such  payment  would  be  extinguished  within  a  very 
short  time  from  the  increased  returns  of  the  industries 
themselves,  and  the  nation  left  unencumbered  and  un- 
shackled, free  to  work  out  its  own  destinies. 

With  this  brief  amplification  of  Dr.  Ryan's  outline  of 
the  Socialist  plan  of  industrial  organization,  let  us  pro- 
ceed to  the  examination  of  his  objections  to  it. 

The  first  ground  of  Dr.  Ryan's  opposition  to  the  So- 
cialist programme  relates  to  the  methods  by  which  the 
collective  ownership  of  the  industries  is  to  be  acquired. 

As  I  have  stated  above,  and  as  Dr.  Ryan  admits,  the 
Socialists  are  not  committed  to  the  method  of  confisca- 
tion. They  advocate  to-day,  and  under  normal  condi- 
tions will  continue  to  advocate,  full  compensation  to  the 
expropriated  capitalists.  But  the  Socialists  refuse  to 


74  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

make  bargains  with  the  future,  and  point  to  the  well- 
known  historical  fact  that  some  of  the  greatest  advances 
in  human  progress  and  popular  liberty  have  been  accom- 
panied by  summary  confiscation  of  privileges  and 
property.  Thus  the  sublimest  act  in  American  history, 
the  emancipation  of  the  negro  slaves,  was  accomplished 
by  the  undisguised  method  of  confiscation. 

Dr.  Ryan  admits  that  in  some  supreme  national 
crisis,  when  no  other  course  is  "physically  possible," 
confiscation  may  be  "morally  legitimate";  but  he  as- 
sumes that  the  Socialists  would  be  ready  to  resort  to 
that  process  before  the  crisis  should  become  sufficiently 
acute,  not  as  a  matter  of  "physical"  necessity,  but  as  a 
measure  of  social  expediency.  This  view  he  brands  as 
"immoral."  Is  it? 

The  term  confiscation  may  be  defined  as  the  legal 
appropriation  of  a  person's  property  without  adequate 
compensation.  It  may  be  accomplished  by  means  of  a 
summary  decree,  or  legislative  enactment,  or  by  a  slow 
and  gradual  process.  In  this,  the  only  proper  sense  of 
the  term,  the  capitalist  system  owes  its  existence  to  a 
series  of  continuous,  wholesale,  and  unscrupulous  acts  of 
confiscation,  and  the  individual  capitalists  are  expert 
and  habitual  confiscators.  Our  landed  aristocracy  has 
confiscated  the  land  of  the  people  by  acts  of  fraud,  vio- 
lence, and  corruption  familiar  to  every  student  of  Ameri- 
can economic  history,  and  our  great  manufacturers  and 
railroad  magnates  have  similarly,  though  less  obviously, 
confiscated  the  national  instruments  of  wealth  produc- 
tion and  distribution. 

In  an  effort  to  prove  that  the  majority  of  the  capi- 
talists hold  their  wealth  legitimately,  Dr.  Ryan  men- 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  75 

tions  and  attempts  to  justify  four  "main  sources"  of 
capital. 

Let  us  briefly  examine  these  alleged  sources. 

The  item  of  interest  may  be  disposed  of  without  much 
argument,  since  the  mention  of  interest  as  a  source  of 
capital  is  obviously  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse. 
Interest  can  only  be  drawn  on  previously  acquired  capi- 
tal. It  is  the  fruit  of  capital,  not  its  source. 

As  to  the  modern  fortunes  made  through  "wages  and 
salaries,"  they  figure  very  large  in  Sunday-school  ser- 
mons and  conventional  text-books  of  political  economy, 
but  hardly  ever  in  Dun's  or  Bradstreet's.  Capitalist 
wealth  is  made  not  by  earning  wages,  but  by  paying 
wages,  and  the  greater  the  pay-roll  of  the  capitalist,  the 
larger  are  his  profits.  In  other  words,  the  "wages  and 
salaries"  which  the  capitalist  saves  are  not  his  own,  but 
those  of  his  employees. 

The  large  manufacturer  who  does  not  owe  his  profits 
to  an  artificial  monopoly,  an  iniquitous  protective  tariff, 
or  corrupt  government  contracts  is  probably  Dr.  Ryan's 
ideal  type  of  the  "honest"  business  man,  and  his  profits 
are  legitimate  "business  gains  resulting  from  exceptional 
directive  and  inventive  ability  in  conditions  of  full  and 
fair  competition."  But  if  such  manufacturer  should  re- 
turn to  his  employees  the  equivalent  of  all  they  produce, 
he  would  soon  go  bankrupt.  The  only  way  by  which 
he  can  amass  wealth  is  to  pay  to  his  workers  a  wage 
amounting  to  less  than  the  value  of  their  product  and 
to  retain  the  difference  as  profits. 

Thus  the  honest  capitalist  confiscates  part  of  the 
product  of  the  worker's  toil.  And  this  process  of  con- 
fiscation is  still  at  work  among  us ;  it  goes  on  uninter- 


76  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ruptedly  day  by  day,  and  is  directed  against  the  most 
needy  and  helpless.  It  robs  the  working  man  of  the 
comforts  of  life,  the  working  woman  of  her  home  and 
fireside,  and  the  working  child  of  youth  and  joy  —  it  is 
the  meanest  of  all  methods  of  confiscation. 

Another  source  of  capital  mentioned  by  Dr.  Ryan  is 
"natural  resources  and  opportunities,  such  as  land, 
mines,  forests,  and  franchises,  which  the  State  conceded 
to  individuals  and  corporations  through  the  medium  of 
free  and  honest  contracts."  My  adversary  defends  all 
wealth  derived  through  that  source  as  "valid  in  morals" 
in  the  hands  of  the  present  owners,  even  though  the 
original  grants  may  have  been  "socially  unwise." 

Thus,  if  an  irresponsible  ruler  or  an  improvident  legis- 
lature several  generations  ago  has  seen  fit  to  "give 
away"  the  earth  and  its  treasures  to  a  few  favoured  in- 
dividuals, we,  who  have  come  into  this  world  a  century 
or  more  after  the  "grantors"  have  turned  into  dust, 
must  continue  paying  tribute  to  a  new  generation  of  men 
who  happen  to  descend  from  the  fortunate  original 
"grantees."  We  must  accept  as  "valid  in  morals"  the 
theory  that  the  sources  of  life  of  the  whole  human  race 
and  of  all  generations  to  come  may  be  mortgaged  to  a 
few  chosen  individuals  and  their  offspring  forever,  and 
that  the  people  have  no  right  to  free  themselves  from  this 
most  subtle  form  of  indirect  slavery  except  upon  the  pay- 
ment of  a  heavy  ransom. 

And,  finally,  Dr.  Ryan  claims  full  compensation  as  a 
right  even  for  the  majority  of  capitalists,  whose  wealth 
has  originated  "through  various  forms  of  injustice,  such 
as  physical  force,  fraudulent  contracts,  oppression  of 
labourers,  and  extortion  upon  consumers,"  on  the  ground 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  77 

that  property  thus  "acquired"  has  become  legal  and 
valid  in  the  hands  of  the  present  owners  either  because 
they  are  "innocent"  third  parties  or  through  prescription. 

This  doctrine  has  been  asserted  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  and  has  probably  caused  greater 
social  disaster  than  any  other  decision  of  that  august 
tribunal.  What  the  principle  means  in  effect  is  this :  — 

If  you  are  robbed  of  your  watch  by  one  highwayman, 
of  your  coat  by  another,  and  of  your  shirt  by  a  third, 
you  may  recover  all  these  articles  so  long  as  each  of  the 
.gentlemen  of  the  road  retains  the  identical  article  of  his 
original  "acquisition";  but  if  they  interchange  the 
articles  between  themselves,  your  claim  is  extinguished, 
because  your  stolen  property  has  passed  into  the  hands 
of  "  third  parties."  If  no  such  exchange  takes  place,  and 
each  thief  holds  on  to  the  article  of  his  choice  long  enough, 
he  acquires  "title  by  prescription,"  which  all  future 
generations  are  bound  to  respect. 

The  two  doctrines  which  Dr.  Ryan  thus  upholds  —  the 
perpetual  validity  of  public  grants  and  title  by  prescrip- 
tion —  are  the  doctrines  upon  which  all  forms  of  robbery 
and  slavery  have  ever  been  defended.  The  Socialists 
reject  them  as  shockingly  immoral,  and  against  them 
they  assert  the  inalienable  right  of  the  human  race  to  the 
earth  and  the  fulness  thereof,  and  the  equal  claim  to  life 
and  enjoyment  of  every  child  born  into  the  world. 

If  the  Socialists  nevertheless  favour  compensation 
to  the  owners  of  capital,  they  do  so  purely  for  reasons 
of  social  expediency  —  acting  on  the  same  principle  as 
the  man  who  has  been  robbed  of  his  purse  in  a  street-car, 
and  who  offers  a  reward  to  the  "honest  finder"  with  the 
significant  assurance  —  "and  no  questions  asked." 


78  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

The  other  moral  ground  of  Dr.  Ryan's  objection  to  the 
Socialist  programme  relates  to  its  scheme  of  land  owner- 
ship. 

As  Dr.  Ryan  hints,  Socialists  regard  land  ownership 
in  a  dual  aspect. 

Land  of  reasonable  dimensions  actually  cultivated  or 
used  by  the  farmer  without  employment  of  hired  help  to 
any  appreciable  extent,  is  an  instrument  of  labour  analo- 
gous to  the  individual  tool,  and  land  used  for  private 
dwellings  is  an  article  of  use  rather  than  an  instrument 
of  production.  The  Socialists  are  not  opposed  to  the  ex- 
clusive private  use  and  occupation  of  such  lands;  nor 
would  they  tax  them  to  the  full  extent  of  their  value,  as 
Dr.  Ryan  assumes. 

But  they  condemn  utterly  the  private  ownership  and 
exclusive  control  of  land  used  for  business  purposes  — 
rent-producing  land  —  and  they  insist  that  the  ultimate 
title  to  all  land  remain  in  the  State. 

Is  this  position  really  so  revolting  as  to  shock  the 
moral  sense  of  good  people?  It  seems  to  me  quite 
obvious  that  of  all  species  of  human  wealth  land  is  the 
most  "natural."  Whether  it  was  created  in  the  peren- 
nial process  of  cosmic  evolution  or  at  the  sudden  behest 
of  an  Almighty  Creator,  it  can  hardly  be  argued  that  it 
was  intended  as  a  special  and  exclusive  gift  to  the  land- 
lord class,  to  be  parcelled  out  by  them  into  city  lots  and 
acreage  plots  and  let  to  their  fellow-men  in  return  for 
heavy  rents. 

"As  against  other  individuals  and  the  State,  man  has 
an  inborn  right  to  control  and  use  the  bounty  of  nature 
in  the  way  that  will  best  secure  the  requisites  of  reason- 
able life  and  self-development,"  maintains  Dr.  Ryan  in 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  79 

this  connection.  With  this  statement  I  fully  agree,  but 
my  distinguished  opponent  and  I  differ  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  obvious  ethical  principle. 

Dr.  Ryan  seems  to  employ  the  term  "man"  as  synony- 
mous with  "landlord,"  while  I  am  inclined  to  include 
also  within  that  designation  the  non-landed  species  of 
the  human.  It  is  because  the  Socialists  believe  that  all 
men  have  the  right  "to  control  and  use  the  bounty  of 
nature  in  a  way  that  will  best  secure  the  requisites  of 
their  reasonable  life  and  self -development,"  that  they 
object  to  the  system  of  private  landownership,  which 
allows  a  minority  of  the  population  to  monopolize  that 
bounty  and  to  exclude  the  majority  from  its  enjoyment. 

Dr.  Ryan's  apprehension  that  a  Socialist  State  would 
"turn  out  the  small  farmer  at  any  time  deemed  ex- 
pedient," is  quite  gratuitous.  Under  a  system  of  gov- 
ernmentally  owned  land  the  tenure  of  the  bona-fide  tiller 
of  the  soil  will  certainly  be  more  secure  than  it  is  to-day, 
when  the  majority  of  small  farmers  depend  on  the  mercy 
of  the  mortgagor  or  landlord. 

Passing  from  moral  considerations  to  practical  grounds, 
Dr.  Ryan  asserts  that  the  Socialist  plan  of  industrial 
organization  would  be  detrimental  to  the  economic  life 
of  the  country. 

Socialism  advocates  not  only  collective  ownership,  but 
also  democratic  administration  of  the  industries.  In 
practical  application  this  principle  must  be  interpreted 
to  mean  that  under  a  Socialist  regime  the  workers  in 
each  industry  will  have  a  voice  in  the  selection  of  the 
managing  authorities  and  in  the  formulation  of  the  main 
features  of  industrial  policy,  subject  to  such  general  laws 


80  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

and  regulations  as  will  be  necessary  to  safeguard  the 
interests  of  the  community  as  a  whole. 

This,  of  course,  does  not  imply  that  the  workers  will 
elect  each  shop  foreman  or  factory  superintendent,  or 
that  the  managing  authorities  will  fix  in  advance  a  uni- 
form scale  of  wages  or  a  uniform  labour  day  for  each 
group  of  employees.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  in  its 
practical  workings  the  Socialist  industrial  democracy 
will  be  somewhat  similar  to  the  forms  of  our  present 
political  democracy.  The  workers  in  each  industry  may 
periodically  select  the  managing  authority  with  power  to 
make  appointments  and  to  fix  rules.  Such  elected  board 
or  body  may  consist  of  shop  representatives,  and  these 
would  be  better  judges  of  the  qualifications  of  the  chief 
manager  or  executive  committee  of  the  industry  than 
the  bankers  who  now  control  the  directorates  of  the  great 
corporations. 

Dr.  Ryan  assures  us  that  under  such  a  system  of 
democratic  administration  the  worker  would  "loaf  on 
the  job,"  since  he  would  have  neither  the  hope  of  better 
wages  nor  the  fear  of  discharge  to  spur  him  on  to  the 
proper  performance  of  his  duties ;  the  management  would 
be  lax  and  inefficient,  since  the  "directors  of  industry" 
would  have  no  direct,  personal  interest  in  its  prosperity 
and  would  be  unduly  subservient  to  the  whims  of  the 
working  "rank  and  file";  the  men  of  inventive  genius 
would  not  exert  their  talents  for  the  advance  of  industrial 
progress,  since  they  would  have  no  pecuniary  incentive 
to  do  so ;  production  would  become  stagnant  in  quality 
and  curtailed  in  quantity,  since  it  would  lack  the  vitaliz- 
ing element  of  private  ownership  and  competition. 

The  reasoning  is  based,  on  the  one  hand,  upon  the 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  8l 

theological  conception  that  the  sole  human  incentive  to 
do  right  is  the  fear  of  punishment  or  hope  of  reward,  and 
the  materialistic  notion  that  the  most  stimulating  reward 
is  a  straight  money  compensation  right  here  and  now, 
and,  on  the  other,  upon  the  assumption  that  a  Socialist 
order  could  offer  no  adequate  reward  for  special  efforts. 

The  Socialists  maintain  that  the  converse  of  both 
propositions  is  true.  Under  the  present  system  the 
worker  does  not  share  in  the  benefits  of  increased  or  im- 
proved production  of  labour.  Such  benefits  go  exclusively 
to  the  capitalist  in  the  shape  of  larger  profits,  and  the 
worker  has  nothing  but  his  scant  wage,  his  taxing,  often 
perilous,  work,  and  his  unattractive  factory  surroundings. 
Under  those  conditions  the  sheer  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion necessarily  impels  him  to  "loaf  on  the  job." 

Under  a  system  of  Socialism  each  worker  will  be  a 
partner  in  the  industrial  enterprise  in  which  he  will  be 
employed,  sharing  in  its  prosperity  and  losses  alike; 
and,  since  he  will  have  a  voice  in  the  management,  he 
will  certainly  see  to  it  that  his  work  is  surrounded  by 
reasonable  safeguards  and  sanitary  and  attractive 
conditions. 

Nor  is  there  any  reason  why  the  individual  employee 
under  Socialism  should  not  be  compensated  in  accord- 
ance with  his  skill,  diligence,  and  general  merit.  The 
worker  will  thus  have  a  direct  pecuniary  incentive  as 
well  as  a  moral  stimulus  to  put  forth  his  best  efforts. 
The  manager  and  the  inventor  will  have  the  greatest  of 
all  stimuli  —  public  honour  and  recognition,  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  they  should  not  also  be  rewarded  by  special 
pecuniary  compensations  under  a  Socialist  system. 

It  is  thus  as  easy  for  the  Socialist  to  draw  an  optimis- 


82  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

tic  picture  of  the  Socialist  Industrial  State  as  it  is  for 
the  anti-Socialist  to  paint  it  in  lurid  colours.  But  while 
the  latter  is  only  a  cheerful  guess,  the  former  is  based  on 
experience  and  proved  examples. 

The  Socialist  State  has,  of  course,  never  been  "tried"  ; 
but  cooperative  production  under  democratic  manage- 
ment, very  much  along  the  lines  advocated  by  the  Social- 
ists for  all  industries,  has  been  tested  and  has  amply 
demonstrated  its  superiority  over  capitalist  enterprises. 

The  famous  Belgian  cooperative  societies,  the  "Maison 
du  Peuple,"  the  "Vooruit,"  and  the  "Progres,"  are 
among  the  largest  and  most  successful  business  concerns 
of  their  country.  They  have  been  built  up  by  working- 
men  from  ridiculously  small  beginnings,  and  are  still 
managed  by  thousands  of  workers,  their  members  and 
employees,  in  the  most  efficient  manner.  The  "Zentral 
Verein"  of  Germany,  a  cooperative  distributive  society, 
with  an  annual  business  of  more  than  300,000,000  marks, 
is  successfully  managed  by  its  more  than  1,000,000 
working-men  members ;  and  the  same  tale  may  be  told 
of  the  English  "Cooperative  Wholesale  Society,"  which 
represents  an  accumulated  capital  of  $37,000,000  and 
employs  21,000  members;  and  of  numerous  cooperative 
working-men's  enterprises  in  many  other  countries  of 
Europe. 

Dr.  Ryan's  retort  that  the  workers  have  been  more 
successful  in  cooperative  societies  of  distribution  than  in 
those  of  production  does  not  meet  the  point.  It  only 
proves  that  the  latter  require  more  capital  than  the 
former.  But  distributive  cooperatives  depend  on  man- 
agement, skill,  and  industry  as  much  as  any  other  busi- 
ness enterprises,  and  their  success  goes  to  show  that  these 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  83 

factors  may  develop  in  a  very  large  degree  without  the 
alleged  stimulus  of  capitalist  competition. 

And  there  is  no  lack  of  efficient  and  brilliant  leadership 
in  these  enterprises,  nor  is  there  such  lack  of  leadership 
even  in  present  government  work. 

The  most  notable  feat  accomplished  in  modern  times 
is,  beyond  any  doubt,  the  construction  of  the  Panama 
Canal.  The  United  States  government  took  hold  of  a 
strip  of  land  barren  of  life  and  civilization,  of  unendur- 
able climate  and  pestilential  atmosphere.  Within  a  few 
years  the  country  was  transformed  as  if  by  the  touch  of 
the  miracle-producing  wand  of  the  magician.  The  dread 
epidemic  of  yellow  fever  was  effectively  checked ;  large, 
shady,  and  comfortable  dwellings  were  erected ;  railroads, 
telegraph  and  telephone  lines  were  constructed;  and  a 
powerful  working  force  of  all  grades  of  skill  and  ability 
was  assembled. 

The  workers  in  the  Canal  Zone  received  better  wages 
and  better  treatment  than  their  fellow-workers  in  the 
States ;  they  were  provided  with  free  furnished  quarters ; 
they  received  free  medical  treatment ;  all  articles  of  food 
and  clothing  were  sold  to  them  at  cost ;  and  they  were 
provided  with  club-houses,  libraries,  and  other  means  of 
diversion. 

The  efficiency  of  the  management  and  of  the  working 
force  in  the  Canal  Zone  was  probably  never  excelled, 
and  as  a  result  the  most  stupendous  engineering  feat  of 
ages  was  accomplished  within  an  incredibly  short  time. 

This  task  was  accomplished  by  the  government  of  the 
United  States  operating  through  a  Canal  Commission, 
and  the  practical  work  was  in  charge  of  a  government 
employee  —  Colonel  George  Goethals.  A  capitalist  syn- 


84  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

dicate  had  attempted  the  task  and  abandoned  it  as 
hopeless;  a  capitalist  contractor  had  undertaken  to 
supply  the  requisite  labour  to  the  American  government 
and  failed;  a  capitalist  concern  had  contracted  to  pro- 
vide the  Canal  workers  with  food,  and  had  likewise  failed. 
And  still  our  social  philosophers  prate  about  the  "un- 
progressiveness "  and  "inefficiency "  of  collective  or  gov- 
ernment work,  and  the  impossibility  of  securing  adequate 
industrial  leadership  without  extortionate  money  com- 
pensation. Colonel  Goethals's  salary  is  less  than  that 
of  many  a  successful  commercial  drummer,  and  the 
efficient  managers  of  the  most  stupendous  cooperative 
enterprises  as  a  rule  content  themselves  with  salaries 
ranging  from  twenty  to  forty  dollars  per  week. 

"But,"  says  Dr.  Ryan,  in  reply  to  this  point,  "the 
construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  an  exceptional  case 
and  Colonel  Goethals  is  an  exceptional  person.  He  is 
an  officer  of  the  army,  and  the  traditions  and  training 
of  the  army  have  for  centuries  impressed  upon  its  mem- 
bers strong  conceptions  of  public  service,  honour,  and  pro- 
fessional duty  and  responsibility." 

Quite  so.  Only  this  alleged  objection  to  Socialism 
seems  to  me  rather  to  be  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
in  its  favour.  Take  the  army  as  seen  by  Dr.  Ryan.  It 
is  made  up  of  average  human  beings,  influenced  by  hu- 
man motives  and  subject  to  all  the  laws  of  the  familiar 
bugaboo  of  "human  nature."  Still  the  army  is  not 
dominated  by  motives  of  material  gain.  Through  years 
of  training  it  has  developed  the  higher  stimuli  of  honour 
and  public  responsibility. 

Is  Dr.  Ryan  quite  sure  that  our  captains  of  industry, 
our  inventive,  directive,  and  executive  geniuses  are  hope- 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  85 

lessly  impervious  to  these  nobler  motives  of  action  ?  Is 
it  not  possible  that  they  are  to-day  sordid  and  selfish 
only  because  "their  tradition  and  training  have  for  cen- 
turies impressed  upon  them  strong  conceptions"  of  the 
all-importance  of  the  dollar  and  of  indifference  to  public 
duties  and  responsibilities  ? 

The  Socialists  believe  that  the  business  of  sustaining 
life  is  a  social  function  at  least  equal  in  importance  to 
that  of  destroying  life;  and  they  are  convinced  that  a 
sane  and  just  economic  regime  will  develop  in  the  indus- 
trial army  conceptions  of  duty  and  honour  superior  to 
those  prevailing  in  the  military  army. 

And  finally  Dr.  Ryan  expresses  the  fear  that  a  Socialist 
regime  would  curtail  the  individual  liberty  of  the  citizen. 
He  assures  us  that  under  Socialism  the  buying  and  sell- 
ing prices  of  all  commodities,  as  well  as  the  scale  of  all 
wages,  would  be  determined  by  a  "few  men"  or  by  "one 
or  at  most  two  employing  authorities,"  and  that  there 
would  thus  be  "no  place  for  bargaining";  that  the 
majority  would  exercise  undue  powers  over  the  minority, 
and  that  the  liberty  of  the  press  would  be  destroyed, 
since  no  individual  would  be  permitted  to  own  and  pub- 
lish a  newspaper. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Socialist  programme  to  warrant 
the  assertion  that  prices  and  wages  would  be  fixed  by  an 
independent  or  autocratic  authority.  It  is  more  con- 
sonant with  the  general  Socialist  plan  of  industrial 
organization  and  management  to  assume  that  whatever 
prices  and  wages  will  be  fixed,  will  be  fixed  through 
legislative  enactment  by  authorized  representatives  of  the 
people  and  with  due  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  con- 


86  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

sumer  and  worker,  somewhat  after  the  manner  in  which 
the  charges  and  rates  of  certain  public-service  corpora- 
tions are  now  determined  by  law.  Is  not  that  preferable 
to  having  prices  fixed  arbitrarily  and  secretly  by  trusts 
and  monopolies  ? 

"Under  the  present  system,"  Dr.  Ryan  observes,  "a 
man  can  get  anything  he  has  the  money  to  pay  for." 
With  equal  truth  he  might  have  stated  the  negative  of 
the  proposition :  "Under  the  present  system  men  can  get 
nothing  unless  they  have  the  money  to  pay  for  it."  And 
mighty  few  persons  have  it. 

I  am  also  not  very  much  alarmed  over  the  prospect  of 
the  majority  dominating  the  minority.  It  is  indispen- 
sable for  the  stability  of  a  social  organization  that  a  part 
of  the  people  defer  occasionally  to  the  opinions  or  wishes 
of  their  fellow-citizens.  Under  Socialism  the  minority 
will  submit  to  the  majority  in  matters  of  common  con- 
cern, but  there  will  be  no  fixed  majorities  and  minorities 
in  all  matters,  since  there  will  be  no  fixed  economic 
classes  with  opposing  interests.  Under  the  present 
regime  the  capitalist  minority  dominates  the  non- 
capitalist  majority  in  all  matters  at  all  times.  Which  is 
to  be  preferred? 

Nor  are  Dr.  Ryan's  fears  of  a  Socialist  "Monopoly  of 
Education"  well  grounded.  A  Socialist  State  would,  of 
course,  make  ample  provisions  for  the  education  of  chil- 
dren, but  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  allow  the 
widest  latitude  to  parents  in  the  selection  of  studies  and 
instructors.  The  Socialist  demand  for  compulsory  at- 
tendance at  public  schools  relates  to  the  present  state, 
and  is  made  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  minimum  of 
education  to  all  children. 


THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  87 

And  finally,  as  to  the  imperilled  liberty  of  the  press. 
It  is  probably  true  that  under  Socialism  no  individual 
could  own  a  newspaper.  Nor  could  he  own  a  church  or 
university.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  even  under 
Capitalism  there  are  those  of  us  who  must  forego  the 
convenience  of  owning  a  daily  newspaper,  and  that  under 
Socialism  there  will  be  no  reason  why  any  organization 
or  school  of  art,  science,  politics,  or  religion  could  not 
publish  a  periodical  for  the  advancement  of  their  views. 

On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  "tyranny"  of 
Socialism  cannot  but  afford  a  very  substantial  relief 
from  the  "individual  liberty"  of  Capitalism. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM 
I.  THE  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  MARXISM 

BY  MORRIS  HILLQUIT 

THE  Socialist  movement  is  supported  by  a  set  of  social 
and  economic  doctrines  which,  taken  together,  constitute 
its  "theory"  or  "philosophy." 

The  theory  occupies  a  large  place  in  modern  Socialism. 
It  lends  scientific  sanction  to  the  movement,  formulates 
its  aims,  and  aids  in  the  shaping  of  its  methods.  But 
with  all  that,  its  importance  is  not  paramount.  Social- 
ism is  not  identified  with  its  theoretical  doctrines  in  the 
same  sense  as  a  school  of  abstract  philosophy  or  science. 
The  Socialist  movement  did  not  spring  from  a  philosophi- 
cal doctrine,  and  its  fate  does  not  depend  entirely  upon 
the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  any  of  its  social 
theories.  Socialism  is  a  movement  of  living  human 
beings.  It  is  directed  toward  definite  economic  and 
political  ends,  and  was  engendered  by  concrete  social 
conditions  rooted  in  modern  society.  The  Socialist 
philosophy  takes  the  movement  as  it  finds  it.  It  an- 
alyzes its  causes,  defines  its  goal,  and  maps  out  its 
course.  But  it  does  not  create  it  any  more  than  as- 
tronomy creates  the  planetary  system. 

Following  the  course  of  the  practical  movement,  from 
its  first  faltering  steps  in  the  beginning  of  the  last  cen- 

88 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  89 

tury  to  its  present  state  of  vigorous  maturity,  the  So- 
cialist philosophy  has  passed  through  many  phases  of 
development  until  it  has  reached  its  modern  definite 
aspect.  As  in  all  other  lines  of  thought,  the  evolution 
was  accomplished  by  a  host  of  students  and  thinkers, 
each  contributing  his  mite  to  the  general  store  of  knowl- 
edge and  thus  accumulating  the  material  from  which  a 
great  synthetic  mind  could  erect  the  solid  structure  of  a 
scientific  system. 

In  the  case  of  Socialism  such  a  master  builder  appeared 
in  due  course  of  time  in  the  person  of  Karl  Marx,  a 
German  scholar  of  unusual  attainments,  whose  prin- 
cipal activity  extended  from  the  forties  to  the  eighties 
of  the  last  century.  To  Karl  Marx,  his  associates  and 
disciples,  belongs  the  credit  of  having  stripped  theo- 
retical Socialism  of  its  original  fantastic  and  visionary 
garb,  and  having  built  up  a  system  of  Socialist  philosophy 
on  solid  and  realistic  foundations.  This  system,  popu- 
larly known  as  Marxism,  is  the  accepted  philosophy  of 
modern  international  Socialism,  and  I  shall  now  attempt 
to  sketch  its  main  outlines. 

The  corner  stone  of  the  modern  Socialist  philosophy 
is  its  theory  of  social  evolution.  The  conception  of 
social  development  as  a  process  of  gradual  and  logical 
growth  is  comparatively  new  to  human  thought.  Until 
about  the  eighteenth  century  history  was  generally  re- 
garded as  a  succession  of  accidental  events,  mostly 
brought  about  by  the  arbitrary  will  or  whim  of  the  high 
and  mighty  of  the  world  —  the  kings,  warriors,  and 
priests.  But  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  brought  a  radical  change  in 


90  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

all  domains  of  human  thought  and  knowledge.  Aprioris- 
tic  theories  were  discarded;  speculation  gave  way  to 
research,  and  the  sequence  of  cause  and  effect  was  sought 
in  all  natural  phenomena. 

Ultimately  this  scientific  method  was  transferred  from 
the  natural  sciences  to  the  field  of  social  research,  and 
by  the  middle  of  the  last  century  the  new  "  social  science  " 
was  fairly  established.  It  was  generally  accepted  that 
human  society  is  subject  to  certain  laws  of  growth  and 
development,  and  that  all  social  institutions  are  fashioned 
by  definite  causes  operating  within  society. 

But  what  are  the  factors  determining  the  course  of 
social  development  and  the  elements  fashioning  the  social 
and  political  structure  of  society  ?  These  were  the  main 
questions  which  agitated  the  minds  of  the  adepts  of  the 
new  science.  Karl  Marx  was  the  first  to  offer  a  definite 
and  rational  solution  of  the  momentous  question. 

"The  form,  contents  and  changes  of  every  social 
order,"  declared  the  founder  of  the  modern  Socialist 
philosophy,  "are  determined  by  the  economic  basis  upon 
which  such  society  is  built."  Let  us  examine  this  theory 
more  closely. 

Frederick  Engels,  the  friend  and  collaborator  of  Karl 
Marx,  formulates  it  in  the  following  concise  language :  — 

"The  production  of  the  means  of  sustenance  of  human 
life  and  the  exchange  of  the  things  so  produced  form  the 
basis  of  all  social  structures.  In  every  society  known  to 
history  the  manner  in  which  wealth  is  distributed  and  the 
people  divided  into  classes  depends  upon  what  is  pro- 
duced, how  it  is  produced  and  how  the  products  are  ex- 
changed. From  this  point  of  view  the  final  causes  of  all 
social  changes  and  political  revolutions  are  to  be  sought, 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  91 

not  in  men's  brains,  not  in  men's  better  insight  into 
eternal  truth  and  justice,  but  in  the  changes  occurring 
in  the  modes  of  production  and  exchange.  They  are 
to  be  sought,  not  in  the  philosophy,  but  in  the  economics. 
of  each  epoch."  1 

In  the  literature  of  continental  Europe  this  theory  is 
known  as  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History;  in 
English  it  is  designated  by  preference  by  the  apter  phrase, 
Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 

The  somewhat  fragmentary  formulation  of  the  doctrine 
by  Engels  and  its  still  terser  statement  by  Marx  have 
subsequently  been  amplified  by  both,  and  further  de- 
veloped by  their  disciples.  As  the  theory  is  understood 
and  interpreted  to-day,  it  is  exceedingly  simple  and  may 
be  illustrated  by  a  familiar  example. 

Under  normal  circumstances  the  first  care  of  the  in- 
dividual human  being  is  to  assure  his  material  existence 
—  to  gain  a  livelihood.  The  manner  in  which  he  makes 
his  living  (his  trade,  calling,  or  economic  state)  deter- 
mines to  a  large  extent  his  income,  habits,  associations, 
and  notions  —  his  station  in  life,  mode  of  life,  and  view 
of  life.  A  similar  rule  holds  good  for  aggregations  of 
human  beings  organized  in  societies.  The  first  instinc- 
tive or  conscious  endeavour  of  every  nation  is  to  provide 
the  means  of  its  material  sustenance  —  to  produce 
wealth;  and  the  manner  in  which  it  produces  its  sus- 
tenance ultimately  determines  its  form  of  organization, 
division  of  work  or  functions,  and  its  notions  of  right 
and  wrong  —  its  politics,  social  classes,  and  ethics.  The 
government,  social  relations,  and  morals  of  a  nomadic 
tribe  will  naturally  differ  from  those  of  an  agricultural 
1 "  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific." 


92  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

people,  a  slave-owning  community,  a  feudal  society,  or 
a  manufacturing  and  mercantile  order,  and  in  each  case 
they  will  adopt  the  forms  best  suited  to  the  preserva- 
tion and  advancement  of  the  prevailing  economic  in- 
terests. 

It  is  not  contended  that  the  economic  mainspring  is 
the  sole  motive  of  national  life  and  action.  Idealistic 
notions  and  intellectual  or  moral  conceptions  often  ac- 
quire the  force  of  important  and  even  guiding  factors 
in  the  progress  of  civilization ;  but  as  a  rule  such  notions 
and  conceptions  are  themselves  primarily  engendered  by 
material  conditions. 

The  economic  interpretation  of  history  logically  leads 
to  another  important  Marxian  concept  —  the  doctrine  of 
the  "class  struggle." 

As  against  the  hostile  forces  of  surrounding  nature, 
and  sometimes  also  as  against  other  nations  competing 
for  the  same  bounties  of  nature,  the  economic  interests 
of  each  nation  are  harmonious  and  entire.  But  within 
the  nation  itself  no  such  general  harmony  of  interests 
exists.  As  soon  as  a  society  advances  in  its  economic  de- 
velopment to  the  point  of  division  of  labour,  its  members 
split  into  different  groups  of  separate,  often  antagonistic, 
economic  interests.  The  contending  interest-groups  con- 
stitute the  "classes"  of  society,  and  the  main  division 
among  such  classes  is  created  by  the  possession  or  non- 
possession  of  property.  The  possessors  are  the  privileged 
and  ruling  classes  of  society;  the  propertyless  inhab- 
itants constitute  the  inferior  and  dependent  classes. 
The  members  of  each  of  such  social  divisions  are  united 
in  their  economic  interests  and  are  antagonistic  to  those 
of  opposite  economic  interests. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  93 

The  dominant  classes  always  strive  to  maintain  and 
fortify  their  economic  advantages,  while  the  dependent 
classes  instinctively  or  consciously  endeavour  to  better 
their  social  position  by  curtailing  the  power  and  privileges 
of  their  exploiters.  The  Marxian  Socialists  contend 
that  the  resultant  conflicts  between  the  opposing  classes 
in  each  civilization  constitute  the  main  substance  of  the 
recorded  history  of  the  nations. 

True  to  the  method  of  economic  interpretation,  the 
Marxist  does  not  ascribe  the  causes  of  the  modern  social 
evils  to  a  "faulty"  arrangement  of  society  or  to  the 
"unrighteousness"  of  the  ruling  classes  or  individuals, 
nor  does  he  seek  to  evolve  a  remedy  from  the  depths  of 
his  own  wisdom.  He  maintains  that  both  must  be  found 
in  the  economic  structure  of  modern  society,  in  our 
methods  of  producing  and  distributing  wealth,  and  he 
proceeds  to  analyze  the  mechanism  of  our  industrial 
system.  It  is  significant  that  the  chef-d'oeuvre  of  Karl 
Marx,  the  "Bible"  of  modern  Socialism,  is  not  a  specu- 
lative philosophic  or  moral  treatise,  but  a  dispassionate, 
scholarly  work  on  political  economy,  entitled  "Capital." 

The  character  of  modern  wealth,  Marx  argues,  differs 
from  that  of  the  wealth  of  former  ages.  It  is  not  repre- 
sented by  slaves  or  serfs,  nor  even  principally  by  land 
or  agricultural  products.  Modern  wealth  consists  mainly 
of  an  accumulation  of  privately  owned  commodities  and 
of  the  instruments  used  for  their  production  and  dis- 
tribution. Wealth  in  this  form  is  capital  and  its  owners 
are  capitalists. 

The  ultimate  object  of  capital  is  to  produce  and  ex- 
change commodities  and  thus  to  increase  its  own  volume 
—  this  is  the  substance  of  the  industrial  process.  All 


94  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

industrial  wealth  is  created  in  that  process  and  all  in- 
dustrial profits  are  derived  through  it.  But  since  all 
commodities  exchange  for  their  full  values,  no  accretion 
of  wealth  can  arise  from  the  process  of  exchange,  and  the 
source  of  all  accumulations  of  industrial  profits  and 
wealth  must  therefore  be  found  in  the  process  of  pro- 
duction. Let  us  try  to  trace  it. 

Marx  adopts  the  classical  "labour  theory"  of  value, 
i.e.  the  theory  that  the  value  of  a  manufactured  com- 
modity is  determined  by  the  quantity  of  average  social 
labour  required  for  its  reproduction.  This  doctrine  was 
formulated  by  the  great  classical  economists  Ricardo 
and  Smith,  and  was  generally  accepted  at  the  time  when 
Marx  wrote  his  "Capital";  but  in  the  hands  of  the 
founder  of  modern  Socialism  it  led  to  a  new  economic  dis- 
covery entirely  unforeseen  by  its  original  promulgators. 

Since  the  value  of  all  manufactured  commodities  is 
measured  by  the  aggregate  amount  of  labour l  embodied 
in  them,  the  capitalists  could  make  no  profits  and  accu- 
mulate no  wealth  if  they  were  to  pay  back  to  the  workers 
in  the  shape  of  wages  or  salaries  the  full  equivalent  of 
their  aggregate  labour,  i.e.  all  manufactured  wealth.  It 
is  therefore  evident  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  money 
wages  of  the  workers  represent  less  than  the  full  equiva- 
lent of  the  products  of  their  labour.  How  are  wages 
determined,  and  how  are  profits  made  ? 

1  The  term  "labour"  as  employed  in  Marxian  economics  comprehends 
all  kinds  and  grades  of  work  required  in  the  process  of  producing  and  dis- 
tributing wealth  —  mental  as  well  as  manual,  and  the  work  of  manage- 
ment and  direction  as  well  as  that  of  execution.  In  that  sense  the  labour 
of  the  active  capitalist  produces  as  much  as  that  of  a  hired  employee 
rendering  similar  services,  and  his  compensation  for  such  labour  is  quite 
distinct  from  the  workless  income  on  his  capital. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  95 

"Labour,"  answers  Marx,  "in  the  present  system  is  a 
commodity,  and  is  purchased  by  the  manufacturing 
capitalist  in  the  open  market,  in  the  same  way  as  raw 
material  or  machinery  —  on  the  basis  of  its  market 
value."  The  market  value  of  labour  is  established  sub- 
stantially in  the  same  manner  as  that  of  any  other  com- 
modity —  by  the  cost  of  its  production.  In  the  case  of 
labour  this  formula  means  the  equivalent  of  such  quantity 
of  food,  clothing,  and  other  necessaries  of  life  as  will 
enable  the  worker  to  rear  offspring,  to  maintain  his 
health,  and  restore  his  working  power  from  day  to  day 
according  to  the  established  standard  of  living. 

Thus  if  the  necessaries  of  the  working  man's  life  per 
day  can  be  produced  in  six  hours  of  average  social  labour 
time,  his  average  wages  will  represent  the  portion  of  his 
labour  equivalent  to  six  hours,  and  if  he  works  ten  hours, 
the  product  of  the  remaining  four  hours  will  go  to  his 
employer.  The  portion  of  the  labour  product  which  the 
capitalist  thus  retains  for  himself  Marx  styles  "surplus 
value." 

The  "surplus  value"  of  the  employing  capitalist  is  by 
no  means  his  clear  profit.  From  it  he  usually  pays  rent 
to  the  owner  of  his  factory  site  or  interest  to  the  banker 
who  advances  his  operating  capital,  or  both.  Thus  all 
forms  of  capitalist  revenue,  rent,  interest,  and  profits, 
depend  ultimately  on  the  production  of  "surplus  value," 
while  the  workers  depend  for  their  living  on  wages. 
Since  wages  and  "surplus  value"  are  derived  from  the 
same  source  —  labour  employed  in  the  production  of 
wealth  —  it  is  evident  that  the  portion  of  the  one  is 
relatively  smaller  as  that  of  the  other  is  larger. 

Hence  arises  a  constant  conflict  of  interest  between 


96  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

the  capitalist  class  and  the  working-class  over  their  re- 
spective shares  of  the  product,  and  that  conflict  under- 
lies all  class  struggles  in  modern  society.  In  normal 
times  it  smoulders  under  the  surface,  and  expresses  itself 
in  the  instinctive  efforts  of  the  worker  to  save  and  con- 
serve his  sole  valuable  possession  —  his  labour  power,  to 
"loaf  on  his  job,"  as  Dr.  Ryan  expresses  it,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  the  endeavour  of  the  employers  to  secure 
the  maximum  labour  from  his  "hands"  for  a  given  wage 
—  to  "speed  up."  It  is  also  at  the  bottom  of  the  end- 
less bickerings  over  wage  scales  and  working  hours,  of 
the  predilection  of  the  manufacturing  capitalist  for  the 
labour  of  women  and  children  and  of  the  workers'  oppo- 
sition to  these  forms  of  cheap  labour. 

The  more  acute  stages  of  the  ever  present  conflict  of 
interest  between  employer  and  worker  find  expression  in 
the  "labour  disputes"  which  have  become  inseparable 
from  our  industrial  order,  the  frequent  and  extensive 
strikes,  boycotts,  lockouts,  and  blacklists. 

Nor  is  the  modern  class  struggle  entirely  confined  to 
the  economic  life  of  the  nations.  It  always  influences 
and  often  determines  their  politics  as  well.  The  re- 
spective attitudes  of  the  contending  political  parties 
toward  capital  and  labour  are  among  the  most  vital  issues 
in  all  modern  political  platforms,  and  the  practical  hand- 
ling of  the  problems  arising  from  the  conflict  of  the  two 
economic  categories  often  constitutes  the  main  feature 
of  administrative  policies  and  politics. 

The  struggles  between  capital  and  labour  are  not 
based  on  lack  of  mutual  understanding  or  on  personal 
hostility  between  the  capitalists  and  the  workers.  The 
private  relations  between  an  employer  and  his  employees 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  97 

may  be  very  cordial,  and  both  sides  may  even  be  uncon- 
scious of  the  conflict  of  their  interests ;  but  that  conflict 
is  nevertheless  firmly  and  fatally  imbedded  in  their 
economic  relations,  and  no  amount  of  personal  good  feel- 
ing or  harmony  can  remove  it  so  long  as  the  capitalist 
system  of  production  prevails. 

The  economic  antagonism  between  capitalists  and 
wage-workers  is  not  limited  to  their  immediate  every- 
day concerns :  it  extends  to  their  ultimate  and  more  vital 
social  interests. 

The  capitalist  owes  his  ability  to  extract  "surplus 
value"  from  the  worker  and  thus  to  amass  profits  and 
wealth  to  the  fact  that  he  owns  the  tools  without  which 
no  wealth  can  be  produced.  The  worker  is  forced  to 
surrender  a  substantial  portion  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil 
to  the  capitalist  because  he  possesses  nothing  but  his 
labour  power,  and  that  possession  is  worthless  without  the 
modern  tool.  The  private  capitalist  ownership  of  the 
tools  or  instruments  of  production  is  thus  at  once  the 
source  of  the  capitalists'  strength  and  of  the  workers' 
weakness ;  and  while  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  former  to 
maintain  the  system,  the  salvation  of  the  latter  lies  in  its 
abolition. 

Socialism,  which  advocates  the  abrogation  of  private 
ownership  in  the  instruments  of  production,  is  thus  the 
logical  philosophy  and  social  goal  of  the  working-classes. 

This  deduction  from  the  analysis  of  the  existing  eco- 
nomic system  is  one  of  the  most  important  practical 
results  of  the  Marxian  philosophy.  It  served  to  trans- 
form Socialism  from  a  vague  humanitarian  and  classless 
ideal  into  a  practical  economic  and  political  movement 
of  the  working-class. 


98  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

The  Socialists  of  the  beginning  of  the  last  century 
assumed  that  all  social  evils  were  due  to  a  "faulty" 
organization  of  society  caused  by  lack  of  social  intelli- 
gence, and  that  society  would  be  reorganized  on  a 
"rational"  and  "just"  basis  as  soon  as  men,  and  par- 
ticularly those  in  power  and  authority,  could  be  made 
to  realize  the  faults  and  iniquities  of  the  prevailing 
order.  Hence  the  early  Socialists  addressed  themselves 
to  the  conscience  of  mankind  in  general  and  to  the 
generosity  of  the  wealthy  and  powerful  in  particular, 
trying  to  convert  them  to  their  views  by  arguments  and 
exhortation  and  by  "practical  demonstrations,"  i.e.  the 
establishment  of  experimental  "socialistic"  communities. 

Thus  Charles  Fourier,  the  great  French  Socialist  of 
the  primitive  or  "utopian"  school,  made  a  public  appeal 
to  the  men  of  wealth  to  furnish  him  with  the  means  of 
founding  a  model  community,  and  every  day  during  the 
last  ten  years  of  his  life  he  went  to  his  house  at  noon- 
time with  the  regularity  of  clockwork,  expecting  the 
visit  of  a  sympathetic  millionnaire  in  response  to  his 
appeal.  Robert  Owen,  Fourier's  illustrious  English  con- 
temporary, even  went  so  far  as  to  submit  his  plans  of 
industrial  reorganization  of  society  to  Czar  Nicholas  I 
of  Russia  and  to  the  Congress  of  Sovereigns  at  Aachen. 

The  philosophy  of  Karl  Marx  introduced  a  radical 
change  into  the  situation.  It  asserted  the  doctrine  that 
the  workers  could  not  hope  for  substantial  relief  from 
the  ruling  classes,  since  the  capitalists  cannot  give  up 
the  private  ownership  of  the  tool  without  committing 
economic  suicide.  It  taught  the  workers  that  they  must 
depend  on  their  own  efforts  for  their  social  salvation. 
Marxism  thus  substitutes  enlightened  class  conscious- 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  99 

ness  and  consistent  class  action  on  the  economic  and 
political  fields  for  the  inarticulate  class  instinct  and  one- 
sided activity  of  the  purely  economic  organizations  of 
labour  and  the  purely  propagandist  efforts  of  the  early 
Socialist  schools. 

In  its  general  character  and  immediate  promise  So- 
cialism is  thus  primarily  a  movement  of  the  working- 
class.  But  in  its  practical  operations  and  ultimate 
benefits  it  is  by  no  means  restricted  to  the  wage-workers 
alone. 

While  the  capitalists  and  wage-workers  are  the  most 
important  and  best-defined  interest  groups  or  classes  in 
modern  society,  they  are  not  the  only  classes.  Between 
them  and  alongside  of  them  there  are  numerous  and  im- 
portant economic  groups  usually  designated  by  the  general 
term  "middle  classes."  These  consist  of  small  farmers, 
manufacturers,  and  merchants;  professionals  or  "free 
practitioners"  of  all  callings,  such  as  physicians,  lawyers, 
writers,  artists,  and  clergymen;  and  "intellectuals" 
directly  employed  by  the  capitalist  class,  such  as  super- 
intendents, accountants,  and  clerks.  The  direct  eco- 
nomic interests  of  many  of  these  classes  are  more  closely 
allied  with  those  of  the  workers  than  of  the  capitalists, 
and  in  the  social  struggles  of  the  classes  they  may  fre- 
quently be  found  siding  with  the  former. 

Furthermore,  while  the  working-class  would  be  the 
most  direct  and  immediate  beneficiary  of  the  contem- 
plated Socialist  transformation,  the  benefits  of  the  latter 
would  ultimately  accrue  in  a  very  large  measure  to  man- 
kind at  large.  It  is  not  the  aim  of  Socialism  to  put  the 
workers  in  power  over  other  classes  of  society,  to  sup- 
plant one  dominant  class  by  another.  Since  wage  labour 


100  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

represents  the  last  form  of  economic  dependence  and 
exploitation,  the  victory  of  the  workers  in  the  pending 
class  struggle  must  result  in  the  abolition  of  all  classes  — 
the  economic  emancipation  of  the  entire  human  race. 

In  the  process  of  evolving  an  ever  higher  civilization, 
history  often  selects  one  social  class  as  its  chosen  instru- 
ment. The  capitalist  class  in  the  period  of  its  militant 
youth  was  such  an  instrument  of  civilization  in  demolish- 
ing the  antiquated  feudal  system;  and  the  Socialist 
working-class  is  the  instrument  of  an  impending  superior 
civilization  in  striving  to  abolish  capitalism  and  to  usher 
in  the  higher  order  of  cooperative  effort  and  general 
enjoyment.  It  is  this  larger  aspect  of  the  Socialist 
movement  which  attracts  numerous  persons  outside  of 
the  ranks  of  the  wage-working  classes.  For  while  a  class 
as  such  can  never  act  in  opposition  to  its  direct  and 
immediate  economic  interests,  the  individual  often  is 
guided  in  his  sympathies  and  actions  by  the  broader 
consideration  of  ultimate  public  benefit. 

One  of  the  fundamental  propositions  of  the  economic 
interpretation  of  history  is  that  the  form  of  society  at 
any  given  time  cannot  be  changed  unless  the  economic 
development  has  made  it  ripe  for  such  change.  To 
complete  his  case,  the  Socialist  theoretician  must  there- 
fore prove  not  only  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  work- 
ing-class to  introduce  the  system  of  Socialism,  but  also 
that  it  has  the  power  and  ability  to  do  so,  and  that  the 
current  of  economic  development  favours  such  change. 

The  Marxian  Socialist  contends  that  the  requisite 
conditions  for  the  transition  to  Socialism  are  ripening 
within  the  framework  of  modern  society,  and  that  the 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  IOI 

working-class  is  fast  developing  the  ability  to  effect  the 
change. 

By  the  inexorable  laws  of  its  own  evolution  Capital- 
ism gradually  wipes  out  the  individual  factor  in  pro- 
duction and  management.  The  machine  and  factory 
system  make  production  a  social  and  cooperative  process, 
while  the  large  corporations  and  trusts  organize  the 
management  of  the  industries  on  broad  national  lines. 
And  the  laws  of  capitalist  development  are  still  at  work, 
busily  undermining  the  very  foundation  upon  which  the 
system  rests.  The  competitive  warfare  fattens  its 
victors  and  destroys  its  victims  every  day.  Every  day 
capital  and  economic  power  concentrate  hi  the  hands  of 
an  ever  narrowing  circle  of  industrial  and  financial 
interest  groups. 

In  the  United  States  we  can  already  point  out  a  small 
number  of  combines  and  individuals  who  together  con- 
trol the  main  sources  and  products  of  the  national  wealth. 
This  process  has  proceeded  with  gigantic  strides  within 
the  last  twenty-five  years.  What  heights  will  it  reach  a 
quarter  of  a  century  hence?  Will  one  great  money 
octopus  be  allowed  to  fasten  its  greedy  tentacles  on  the 
life  and  existence  of  the  hundred  million  inhabitants  of 
the  country,  or  will  the  nation  develop  a  power  of  suffi- 
cient strength  and  intelligence  to  free  itself  from  the 
menace  by  reorganizing  society  on  a  new  and  sounder 
basis  ? 

The  Socialists  assert  that  the  Socialist  movement  of 
the  working-class  is  developing  into  such  a  power.  The 
ranks  of  the  workers  are  steadily  extending,  their  num- 
bers are  rapidly  increasing.  The  process  of  capitalist 
concentration  results  among  other  things  in  the  elimina- 


102  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

tion  of  the  independent  small  producers  and  traders,  who 
are  forced  in  ever  increasing  numbers  into  the  state  of 
dependent  "salaried"  employees,  and  the  cohorts  of 
industrial  wage-earners  are  further  augmented  by  accre- 
tions from  the  farming  population,  whose  life  becomes 
more  and  more  precarious.  The  story  of  this  irresist- 
ible movement  is  writ  large  in  the  records  of  every  de- 
cennial census. 

Nor  is  the  growth  of  the  working-class  to  be  measured 
by  numbers  alone.  The  workers  advance  steadily  in 
social  intelligence,  in  the  spirit  of  revolt,  and  in  political 
wisdom  and  power.  This  is  the  real  significance  of  the 
tremendous  growth  in  recent  times  of  the  Socialist, 
trade-union,  and  cooperative  movements,  and  of  the 
"socialistic"  and  "semi-socialistic"  measures  of  all 
modern  legislatures.  The  growth  of  the  Socialist  and 
labour  movement  keeps  pace  with  that  of  capitalist 
concentration  and  power,  and  the  time  is  bound  to 
come  when  these  two  main  and  contending  factors  in 
modern  civilization  will  be  forced  into  a  trial  of 
strength. 

Which  will  prevail?  The  small  group  of  the  "in- 
terests" or  the  large  masses  of  the  workers? 

"The  workers,  beyond  a  doubt,"  answer  the  Socialists. 
For  the  power  of  the  ruling  classes  is  purely  artificial, 
and  is  based  on  the  tolerance,  ignorance,  and  apathy  of 
the  masses.  It  cannot  survive  the  awakening  of  the 
populace ;  it  cannot  continue  against  their  opposition. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  103 

II.  AN  EXPLODED  PHILOSOPHY 

BY  JOHN   A.   RYAN,   D.D. 

Concerning  the  relation  and  importance  of  the  So- 
cialist philosophy  to  the  Socialist  movement,  I  am  in 
substantial  agreement  with  my  esteemed  opponent. 
While  economic  Socialism  is  not  necessarily  dependent 
upon  the  fundamental  theory  elaborated  by  Karl  Marx, 
it  has  historically  been  made  to  rest  upon  that  founda- 
tion, and  not  upon  another.  That  basis,  therefore,  that 
"set  of  social  and  economic  doctrines,  .  .  .  lends  scien- 
tific sanction  to  the  movement,  formulates  its  aims,  and 
aids  in  the  shaping  of  its  methods."  Yes ;  and  is  mainly 
responsible,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  for  its  ethical,  re- 
ligious, and  other  non-economic  doctrines  and  affinities. 

In  the  words  of  Mr.  Hillquit,  "the  corner-stone  of  the 
modern  Socialist  movement  is  its  theory  of  social  evolu- 
tion." And  the  core  of  the  theory  is  the  doctrine  of 
historical  materialism,  or  economic  interpretation  of 
history,  or  —  to  adopt  the  title  that  seems  to  me  most 
precise  and  suggestive  —  economic  determinism. 

According  to  its  original  formulation  by  Marx  and 
Engels,  "the  form,  contents,  and  changes  of  every  social 
order"  and  "all  social  changes  and  political  revolutions" 
are  determined,  caused,  shaped  by  economic  factors,  by 
the  methods  of  proprietorship,  production,  and  exchange. 
Later  on  the  theory  was  so  modified  by  Engels  as  to 
admit  the  influence  of  political,  legal,  philosophical,  and 
religious  factors.1 

1  See  Seligman,  "The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,"  pp.  142, 
143;  New  York,  1902. 


104  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Nevertheless,  he  continued  to  hold  that  the  economic 
factor  was  the  decisive  one  in  the  last  instance.  This 
implies  that  the  influence  of  the  non-economic  social 
factors  is  all  derived  and  instrumental,  not  original  and 
independent.  Consequently  the  extent  and  direction  of 
their  causal  action  is  ultimately  governed  by  the  eco- 
nomic factor,  just  as  the  operation  of  the  hammer  upon 
a  nail  or  the  saw  upon  a  board  is  produced  and  regulated 
by  the  carpenter.  Inasmuch  as  he  was  a  philosophical 
materialist,  Engels  could  not  logically  admit  that  non- 
material  and  non-economic  factors,  such  as  religion  and 
ethics,  were  capable  of  exerting  any  original  and  inde- 
pendent force  or  causality.  Therefore,  his  modification 
of  the  theory  of  economic  determinism  does  not  mean  as 
much  as  an  uncritical  perusal  of  his  words  might  lead 
one  to  infer.  It  merely  makes  explicit  what  was  from 
the  beginning  of  the  theory  implicit,  namely,  that  non- 
economic  factors  do  exert  a  real  and  important,  though 
secondary  and  derived,  influence  upon  social  evolution. 

This  revised  but  not  essentially  changed  form  of  the 
theory  is  the  one  apparently  accepted  by  my  opponent. 
While  he  admits  that  "idealistic  notions  and  intellectual 
and  moral  conceptions  often  acquire  the  force  of  im- 
portant and  even  guiding  factors  in  the  progress  of  civili- 
zation," he  maintains  that  "the  manner  in  which  it  [a 
nation]  produces  its  sustenance  ultimately  [italics  mine] 
determines  its  form  of  organization,  division  of  work  or 
functions,  and  its  notions  of  right  and  wrong  —  its 
politics,  social  classes,  and  ethics." 

Now  it  is  undeniable  that  economic  conditions  do 
exercise  a  large  influence  upon  social  life,  ideas,  institu- 
tions, and  development.  Discerning  men  no  longer 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  105 

think  that  a  nation's  history  can  be  written  in  terms  of 
its  spectacular  events  and  its  great  warriors,  diplomats, 
and  statesmen.  To  know  adequately  the  life  and  achieve- 
ments of  a  people  we  must  study  their  social  institu- 
tions, and  among  the  latter  a  very  large  part  is  taken  by 
economic  institutions.  If  the  economic  factor  had  played 
no  r61e  in  the  Protestant  Reformation,  the  American 
Revolution,  the  making  of  our  Constitution,  our  Civil 
War,  and  the  Irish  struggle  for  self-government,  the 
history  of  these  events  would  have  been  vastly  dif- 
ferent. 

To-day  almost  all  our  political  problems  and  activities 
are  entirely  or  fundamentally  economic.  Even  the 
ethical  notions  of  men  vary  considerably  according  to 
their  industrial  interests.  Consider,  for  example,  the 
different  moral  judgments  passed  respectively  by  em- 
ployers and  employees  upon  the  strike,  the  boycott, 
the  closed  shop,  judicial  injunctions,  and  the  definition 
of  fair  wages  and  fair  profits. 

To  admit  and  insist  that  economic  conditions  very 
largely  influence  the  politics,  morals,  and  even  the 
religious  life  of  peoples  and  social  classes  is,  however, 
to  fall  far  short  of  the  Socialist  position.  Whether  he 
be  a  philosophical  materialist  or  not,  the  average  Socialist 
magnifies  the  role  of  the  economic  factor  beyond  all 
plausibility.  Particularly  is  this  true  with  regard  to 
religion  and  ethics.  Witness  the  extravagant  and  fan- 
tastic attempts  of  Kautsky  and  Loria  to  "explain"  the 
origin  and  subsequent  history  of  Christianity  on  purely 
economic  grounds,  and  the  crude  and  superficial  efforts 
of  so  many  Socialists  to  reduce  all  vice,  crime,  and  sin  to 
economic  causes  and  motives. 


106  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

That  phase  of  the  theory  of  economic  determinism 
which  we  have  just  been  considering  describes  the  general 
causality  of  the  economic  factor.  It  deals  with  the  in- 
fluence of  economic  conditions  and  changes  upon  other 
social  conditions  and  changes.  There  is,  however, 
another  phase  of  the  theory  which  has  to  do  with  the 
manner  in  which  the  dominant  economic  factors  operate 
within  the  economic  field,  and  bring  about  social  evolu- 
tion. According  to  this  part  of  the  theory,  the  method 
or  instrument  through  which  changes  in  the  social  struc- 
ture of  society  are  effected  is  the  class  struggle. 

Hence  economic  forces  operating  through  the  class 
struggle  are  the  primary  determinants  of  all  social  evolu- 
tion. It  was  in  the  light  of  these  two  sides  of  the  eco- 
nomic-determinism theory  that  Marx  and  Engels  wrote 
in  the  "Communist  Manifesto":  "The  history  of  all 
hitherto  existing  society  is  the  history  of  class  struggles." 

Obviously  this  sentence  contains  an  enormous  amount 
of  exaggeration.  The  great  international  wars,  the  rise 
and  growth  of  Christianity,  the  development  of  educa- 
tion, law,  science,  and  invention  were  only  feebly  and 
remotely  determined  by  struggles  between  different 
economic  groups.  This  is  a  fine  formula  for  simpli- 
fying history,  but  it  ignores  too  many  inconvenient 
facts.  In  Mr.  Hillquit's  acceptation  of  the  theory,  class 
struggles  appear  as  the  "main  substance  of  the  recorded 
history  of  the  nations."  This  statement  will  not  stand 
the  test  of  a  comprehensive  review  of  historical  events. 

Even  when  we  confine  our  attention  to  the  purely 
economic  field,  we  see  that  the  class-struggle  doctrine 
unduly  simplifies  the  relations  and  exaggerates  the  an- 
tagonisms of  the  different  economic  classes.  The  latter 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  107 

cannot,  as  so  many  Socialists  would  have  us  believe, 
be  properly  reduced  to  two,  capitalists  and  "workers." 
Indeed,  Mr.  Hillquit  enumerates  under  the  general  des- 
ignation of  "middle  classes"  several  economic  groups, 
such  as  small  farmers,  manufacturers,  and  merchants, 
the  professional  classes  and  the  salaried  classes.  How- 
ever, he  maintains  that  their  economic  interests  are 
"often  more  closely  allied  with  those  of  the  workers  than 
of  the  capitalists."  "Often,"  perhaps;  certainly  not 
always. 

But  my  opponent  contends  that  the  main  division 
among  these  classes  is  created  not  so  much  by  economic 
occupation  or  function  as  by  "the  possession  or  non- 
possession  of  property."  Even  this  basis  of  division 
does  not  yield  material  for  a  class  struggle  of  any  great 
importance. 

Professor  Streightoff  estimates  that  there  are  about 
twenty-four  million  individuals  in  the  United  States 
who  possess  some  income-bearing  property  other  than 
government  and  corporation  securities.1  Combining 
with  this  number  those  persons  who  own  the  latter  two 
kinds  of  securities,  and  making  a  liberal  allowance  for 
duplications,  we  seem  to  be  warranted  in  putting  the 
total  number  of  income-bearing  property  owners  at  a 
majority  of  the  fifty-one  million  persons  whose  age  is 
twenty  years  and  over.2  Between  these  and  the  proper- 
tyless  minority  an  active  or  economically  important  con- 
flict is  quite  unlikely.  Should  one  arise  it  would  evidently 
not  terminate  in  the  way  desired  by  the  Socialists.  The 
possessing  section  is  too  numerous  and  too  powerful. 

1  "The  Distribution  of  Incomes  in  the  United  States,"  p.  146;  New 
York,  1912.  2  Census  of  1910. 


108  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Finally,  if  the  line  of  cleavage  is  to  be  drawn,  as  many 
Socialists  contend,  between  those  who  get  their  living 
mainly  from  wages  and  those  who  derive  most  or  all  of 
their  incomes  from  capital,  the  conditions  of  a  genuine 
struggle  would  still  be  wanting,  because  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  former  division  would  refuse,  and  do 
refuse,  to  become  involved.  They  do  not  believe  that 
their  interest  lies  in  that  direction. 

Class  divisions  based  upon  divergent  economic  interests 
are  an  indisputable  fact.  In  his  recent  work  entitled 
"An  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,"  Professor  Beard  of  Columbia  University 
has  shown  that  the  Constitution  was  not  the  work  of 
altruistic  and  doctrinaire  political  scientists,  but  of  the 
personal  property  and  creditor  classes.  In  writing  it 
they  zealously  protected  their  own  interests  against  the 
interests  and  designs  of  the  merchant,  mechanic,  farmer, 
and  debtor  classes.  But  it  happened  that  their  interests 
were,  so  far  as  the  making  of  a  constitution  was  con- 
cerned, in  harmony  with  the  broad  principles  of  economic 
and  political  equity. 

In  our  time  the  average  member  of  a  legislative  body 
primarily  represents  not  an  abstraction  called  his  entire 
constituency,  but  the  economic  class  with  which  he  is 
most  closely  affiliated.  Hence  the  practical  need  of  each 
class  to  have  its  own  representatives  in  every  legislature. 
Numerous  other  instances  of  the  influence  of  class  sym- 
pathies and  class  interests  upon  social  and  political  life 
will  readily  occur  to  the  intelligent  observer. 

But  the  man  who  tries  to  see  things  as  they  are  will 
realize  that  the  number  of  economic  classes  cannot  use- 
fully nor  correctly  be  reduced  to  two,  and  that  a  very 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  109 

large  part  of  the  population  is  not  definitely  aligned  in 
a  single  class  conflict.  There  exists,  indeed,  a  certain 
sort  of  class  struggle  between  a  large  section  of  the  wage- 
earners  and  a  large  section  of  the  capitalists ;  but  other 
large  sections  hold  persistently  aloof,  or  engage  in  it 
only  feebly  and  intermittently,  and  even  then  not  uni- 
formly on  the  same  side.  Hence  the  struggle,  such  as  it 
is,  is  much  less  general,  less  intense,  and  less  uniform 
than  it  appears  in  the  average  Socialist  picture. 

The  proposition  that  labour  does  not  get  the  full  equiv- 
alent of  its  product  is  in  one  sense  a  platitude,  and  in 
another  sense  unprovable. 

It  is  a  platitude  inasmuch  as  it  states  that  labour  does 
not  obtain  the  whole  of  the  product  created  by  present 
labour  combined  with  capital,  or  "crystallized  labour." 
It  is  unprovable  inasmuch  as  it  implies  that  capital 
contributes  to  the  joint  product  only  sufficient  utility  or 
sufficient  value  to  replace  the  capital,  and  that  all  the 
remaining  value  of  the  product  is  the  creation  of  present 
labour.  Since  the  product  would  not  have  come  into 
existence  at  all  if  either  capital  or  labour  were  wanting, 
and  since  every  part  of  it  is  due  in  some  degree  to  the 
action  of  both,  to  determine  how  much  of  the  product 
is  specifically  attributable  to  either  factor  is  quite  as  im- 
possible as  to  find  out  what  proportion  of  the  animal 
has  come  from  either  parent. 

Wherefore  Marx's  "new  economic  discovery"  turns 
out  to  be  the  discovery  either  of  the  obvious  or  of  the  un- 
discoverable. 

The  statement  that  wages  are  determined  by  the  cost 
of  maintaining  labour  in  conformity  with  "  the  established 


110  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

standard  of  living"  is  under  one  aspect  unimportant, 
and  under  another  aspect  untrue.  It  is  unimportant 
because  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  scale  of 
living  of  the  labourer  is  unreasonably  low,  and  because  it 
is  true  of  other  than  the  working-classes.  "The  estab- 
lished standard  of  living  "  is  quite  elastic  and  relative.  For 
a  large  part  of  the  workers  it  means  a  reasonable  and  com- 
fortable existence,  and  often  includes  savings  and  invest- 
ments for  the  future.  Their  "established  standard  of 
living,"  interpreted  in  this  broad  sense,  absorbs  likewise 
all  the  incomes  of  the  great  majority  of  those  who  are 
not  wage-earners. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  statement  in  question  is  untrue, 
inasmuch  as  it  asserts  that  wages  are  in  all  cases  strictly 
determined  by  the  established  standard  of  living.  The 
latter  is  an  effect  rather  than  the  cause  of  most  of  those 
incomes  which  are  above  the  cost  of  bare  subsistence. 

In  a  word,  the  whole  Marxian  surplus-value  theory  is 
a  pedantic  and  mystifying  formulation  of  things  which 
are  either  obvious,  unprovable,  unimportant,  or  untrue. 
It  does  not  explain  economic  facts,  nor  contribute  to  the 
study  of  economic  justice,  nor  indicate  the  trend  of 
economic  evolution. 

In  the  division  of  a  product  already  in  existence, 
the  interests  of  labour  and  capital  are  opposed,  inasmuch 
as  a  greater  share  to  the  latter  (including  the  business 
manager  and  the  landowner)  will  mean  a  smaller  share 
to  the  former.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  division 
is  made  before  the  product  comes  into  being.  Within 
certain  limits  the  terms  of  the  division  may  decide  not 
only  the  proportion  of  the  product  that  will  go  to  each 
recipient,  but  the  total  amount  that  will  be  available 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  III 

for  distribution.  An  attitude  of  good-will  on  both  sides, 
particularly  on  the  part  of  the  employer  with  regard  to 
wages  and  other  conditions  of  the  labour  contract,  gener- 
ally results  in  a  larger  share  for  both  parties.  Therefore 
the  antagonism  between  them  is  neither  so  fundamental 
nor  so  extensive  as  represented  by  my  opponent  and 
Socialists  generally. 

From  the  fact  that  the  capitalist  takes  a  part  of  the 
product  of  industry  it  does  not  follow  that  the  labourer 
should  seek  to  abolish  the  regime  of  private  capital. 
The  inference  is  not  logical,  nor  is  Socialism  "  the  logical 
philosophy  of  the  working-class."  The  flaw  in  the  in- 
ference is  the  assumption  that  Socialism  would  be  able 
to  give  the  labouring  class  better  conditions  than  are  at- 
tainable under  the  present  system. 

The  truth  that  the  progress  of  the  working-class  de- 
pends mainly  upon  their  own  united  efforts  was  not  dis- 
covered by  Karl  Marx.  As  the  history  of  trade-unionism 
attests,  it  was  fairly  well  known  to  the  labouring  people 
even  before  the  rise  of  modern  Capitalism.  In  England 
and  the  United  States  the  trade-unions  have  done  far 
more  to  diffuse  this  knowledge  than  have  the  Socialists. 
The  influence  of  the  latter  in  educating  the  labouring 
people  need  not  be  denied,  but  over  against  it  must  be 
set  the  fact  that  Marx  and  his  followers  have  exaggerated 
the  power  of  the  workers,  minimized  the  assistance  ob- 
tained and  obtainable  from  other  classes,  and  led  the 
wage-earners  whom  they  have  captured  into  a  blind 
alley. 

"In  proportion  as  capital  accumulates,"  said  Marx, 
"  the  lot  of  the  labourer,  be  his  payment  high  or  low, 


112  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

must  become  worse."  l  With  regard  to  the  middle 
classes,  both  Marx  and  Engels  thought  that  "the  small 
tradespeople,  shopkeepers,  and  retired  tradesmen  gen- 
erally, the  handicraftsmen,  and  the  peasants  —  all  these 
sink  gradually  into  the  proletariat." 2  In  my  oppo- 
nent's statement  of  the  concentration  theory,  these  two 
phases  are  passed  over  in  silence ;  yet  they  were  funda- 
mental in  the  forecast  of  Marx  and  Engels.  How  far 
have  they  been  verified  ? 

Between  1853  and  1893  3  rea-l  wages  increased  in  Great 
Britain  88  per  cent;  in  France,  81  per  cent;  and  in 
the  United  States,  85  per  cent.4  In  his  second  paper 
of  this  series,  Mr.  Hillquit  admits  that,  "on  the  whole, 
life  is  more  propitious  to-day,  even  to  the  masses,  than  it 
was  at  any  time  in  the  past." 

The  middle  classes  have  likewise  refused  to  make 
good  the  Marxian  prediction.  Between  1851  and  1891 
England's  population  increased  but  30  per  cent,  while 
the  number  of  her  families  in  receipt  of  from  £150  to 
£1000  annual  income  was  enlarged  by  233  per  cent. 
According  to  Mr.  Chiozza  Money,  the  number  of  persons 
receiving  from  £180  to  £700  per  annum  in  1904  was  more 
than  twice  as  large  as  the  number  of  families  getting 
from  £150  to  £1000  in  1891.  The  population  of  Prussia 
doubled  between  1854  and  1894,  but  the  number  of  per- 
sons obtaining  above  £150  annually  was  multiplied 
seven  times.  Eduard  Bernstein,  the  Revisionist  Social- 
ist from  whose  "Evolutionary  Socialism"  5  most  of  these 

1  "Capital,"  I,  406,  407 ;  Humboldt  Edition. 

2  "The  Communist  Manifesto,"  p.  26;   Kerr's  Edition. 
"The  "Communist  Manifesto"  appeared  in  1848. 

4  Professor  Bowley  in  the  Economic  Journal,  viii,  488. 
B  Pp.  46,  sq. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  113 

figures  are  taken,  declares  that  the  other  countries  of 
Europe  "show  no  materially  different  picture,"  and  that 
the  members  of  the  possessing  classes  are  increasing  both 
absolutely  and  relatively. 

In  the  United  States  we  have  unfortunately  no  definite 
statistics  regarding  the  numbers  of  persons  in  receipt 
of  any  particular  range  of  incomes,  or  in  possession  of 
particular  amounts  of  property.  For  our  present  pur- 
pose the  most  significant  available  figures  are  the  follow- 
ing: Between  1875  and  1911  the  number  of  savings-banks 
depositors  quadrupled,  while  the  population  merely 
doubled;  from  1880  to  1905  the  wealth  of  the  country 
increased  two  and  one-half  times,  but  the  amount  of 
savings-banks  deposits  three  and  three-quarters  times; 
the  average  size  of  farms  fell  from  206  acres  in  1850  to 
138  acres  in  1910;  and  between  1900  and  1910  the  pro- 
portion of  our  agricultural  land  in  farms  of  more  than 
1000  acres  decreased  more  than  six  and  one-half  per  cent.1 

Although  the  wage-earners  have  shown  no  tendency 
toward  progressive  deterioration,  nor  the  middle  classes 
toward  progressive  disappearance,  has  not  the  concen- 
tration phase  of  the  Marxian  prediction  been  justified  ? 
"The  large  capitals  beat  the  smaller,"  said  Marx.  Is 
the  bulk  of  the  world's  wealth  and  capital  becoming 
concentrated  in  the  hands  of  fewer  and  fewer  great  cap- 
italists and  combinations  ? 

Since  the  middle  classes,  the  owners  of  medium 
amounts  of  productive  property,  are  continuously  in- 
creasing, it  would  seem  that  the  question  just  asked 
ought  to  be  forthwith  answered  in  the  negative.  And 
this  answer  would  be  correct  on  the  whole;  however, 

1  See  Bulletins  of  the  Census  of  1910. 
I 


114  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

it  needs  considerable  qualification,  owing  to  the  different 
conditions  and  tendencies  in  different  parts  of  the  in- 
dustrial field. 

In  agriculture,  as  we  saw  above,  the  tendency  is  away 
from  instead  of  toward  concentration.  The  large 
American  farms  are  breaking  up,  and  the  smaller  farms 
are  rapidly  increasing.  The  same  movement  is  going 
on  in  Europe.  From  a  brief  but  comprehensive  cita- 
tion of  statistics  Bernstein  concludes  that  "in  the  whole 
of  Western  Europe  .  .  .  the  small  and  medium  agri- 
cultural holding  is  increasing  everywhere,  and  the  large 
and  very  large  holding  is  decreasing."  l 

In  the  field  of  distribution  the  department  store  and 
the  mammoth  wholesale  concern  have  in  some  places 
gained  on  the  smaller  establishments;  yet  the  small 
retailer  is  everywhere  increasing  faster  than  the  popula- 
tion. 

In  manufactures,  the  concentration  prediction  has  to 
some  extent  been  verified.  The  proportion  of  the  total 
product  turned  out  by  very  large  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments, and  by  combinations  of  many  establishments 
under  a  single  management,  has  increased  in  practically 
all  progressive  countries.  In  the  United  States  this  pro- 
cess has  moved  faster  and  farther  than  elsewhere,  espe- 
cially during  the  last  fifteen  years.  Every  decennial 
year  since  1840,  except  two,  has  shown  a  considerably 
greater  increase  in  the  amount  of  capital  than  in  the 
number  of  establishments.  Between  1904  and  1909 
the  proportion  of  the  total  output  coming  from  establish- 
ments having  a  product  of  one  million  dollars'  worth  or 
over  increased  nearly  six  per  cent,  while  the  proportion 
1  Op.  cit.,  p.  71. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  115 

turned  out  by  all  the  smaller  establishments  suffered 
a  decrease. 

Nevertheless,  we  must  note  two  mitigating  circum- 
stances. First,  the  number  of  the  smaller  establishments 
and  the  amount  of  business  done  by  them  continue  to 
grow  absolutely,  thus  showing  that  the  absorption  of 
them  by  the  great  industries  is  still  in  the  distant  future. 
In  the  year  1909  56  per  cent  of  the  manufactured  prod- 
ucts of  the  United  States  were  turned  out  by  concerns 
having  an  annual  output  of  less  than  a  million  dollars' 
worth.  Second,  concentration  of  industry  is  not  the 
same  as  concentration  of  capital  ownership.  The  joint- 
stock  company  has  made  possible  a  great  diffusion  of 
property  titles  in  industrial  concerns.  As  a  consequence, 
the  number  of  shareholders  in  our  railways  and  manu- 
facturing concerns  is  increasing  faster  than  the  concen- 
tration of  capital,  and  faster  than  the  size  of  the  business 
establishment.1 

Like  most  other  intelligent  Socialists  of  to-day,  my 
opponent  recognizes  the  exaggerations  of  the  theory 
of  concentration  as  formulated  by  Karl  Marx.  Hence 
he  says  nothing  about  the  impoverishment  of  the  work- 
ing-classes or  the  disappearance  of  the  middle  classes. 
Nevertheless,  he  believes  that  the  concentration  process 
moves  steadily  forward  by  the  inexorable  laws  of  capi- 
talist evolution.  "Every  day  capital  and  economic 
power  concentrate  in  the  hands  of  an  ever  narrowing 
circle  of  industrial  and  financial  interest  groups.  In 
the  United  States  we  can  already  point  out  a  small  num- 
ber of  combines  and  individuals  who  together  control 
the  main  sources  and  products  of  the  national  wealth." 

1  Cf.  Streightoff,  op.  cit.,  pp.  35,  sq. 


Il6  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Apparently  my  opponent  has  in  mind  not  merely  the 
combination  of  many  corporations  into  a  few  great  trusts, 
but  the  substantial  control  of  a  large  part  of  the  entire 
industrial  field  by  a  small  number  of  financial  concerns, 
through  such  devices  as  interlocking  directorates  and 
the  monopoly  of  credit  accommodations.  The  magni- 
tude assumed  by  these  phenomena  during  the  last  quar- 
ter of  a  century  suggests  to  him  the  conclusion  that  a 
great  industrial  and  financial  oligarchy  will  in  the  near 
future  either  dominate  completely  the  lives  of  the  people, 
or  be  overthrown  by  Socialism. 

And  yet  there  is  a  third  alternative.  The  great  indus- 
trial trusts  have  all  been  organized  within  the  last  fifteen 
years,  practically  without  interference  or  regulation  by 
the  government.  As  I  observed  in  my  last  paper, 
it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  these  combinations  are 
really  efficient  and  economical.  Professor  Meade  and 
Mr.  Brandeis  think  that,  as  compared  with  concerns  of 
moderate  size,  they  are  inefficient  and  wasteful.  In 
the  opinion  of  Professor  Taussig,  "it  seems  certain  that 
in  the  ordinary  manufacturing  industries,  even  in  those 
where  large-scale  operations  prevail,  nothing  but  a  pre- 
carious and  limited  monopoly  can  result. "  1  All  our 
available  experience  tends  to  show  that  the  maximum  of 
efficiency,  whether  in  a  single  establishment  or  in  a  com- 
bination of  establishments,  is  reached  long  before  the 
concern  becomes  a  monopoly.  Our  great  trusts  have 
not  been  produced  merely  by  superior  efficiency.  They 
have  been  built,  at  least  in  part,  upon  many  forms  of 
special  privilege,  and  upon  predatory  methods  of  com- 
petition. 

J"  Principles  of  Economics,"  ii,  432. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  117 

To  assume  that  the  government  is  powerless  to  check 
and  destroy  these  abnormal  combinations  and  monopolies 
through  the  abolition  of  special  privilege  and  the  restora- 
tion of  fair  methods  of  competition,  is  hasty  and  unwar- 
ranted. The  thing  has  never  been  seriously  or  intelli- 
gently attempted.  Unless  all  present  signs  fail,  the  right 
kind  of  effort  will  be  made  under  the  administration  of 
President  Wilson.  If  it  should  prove  futile  and  wasteful, 
the  State  will  have  to  recognize  and  encourage  these 
combinations.  It  will  have  to  regulate  them,  even  to 
the  fixing  of  maximum  prices.  If  this  method  should  in 
turn  fail,  the  State  can  itself  become  a  competitor  in 
that  part  of  the  industrial  field  occupied  by  the  trusts. 

Not  until  all  these  devices  have  been  thoroughly  tried 
and  found  wanting  will  there  be  sufficient  reason  for  as- 
serting that  economic  development  leads  inevitably 
to  the  control  of  industry  by  a  few  great  combinations, 
and  thence  to  Socialism. 

That  indirect  form  of  centralization  which  consists 
not  in  complete  ownership,  but  in  interlocking  directo- 
rates and  a  monopoly  of  credit,  and  which  seems  to  en- 
able a  few  powerful  groups  of  men  virtually  to  dominate 
a  large  part  of  the  economic  life  of  America,  is  even  more 
recent  than  the  development  of  the  trusts.  The  as- 
sumption that  it  cannot  be  prevented  or  adequately 
controlled  by  action  of  government  is  even  less  war- 
ranted than  in  the  case  of  the  latter.  Here,  again,  I 
would  advise  my  opponent  to  "wait  and  see." 

The  second  factor  upon  which  Mr.  Hillquit  relies  to 
bring  about  the  Socialist  reorganization  of  industrial 
and  political  society  is  the  rapidly  increasing  power  of  the 
working-class.  "The  process  of  capitalist  concentration 


Il8  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

results  among  other  things  in  the  elimination  of  the  in- 
dependent small  producers  and  traders,  who  are  forced 
in  ever  increasing  numbers  into  the  state  of  dependent 
'salaried'  employees,  and  the  cohorts  of  industrial  wage- 
earners  are  further  augmented  by  accretions  from  the 
farming  population,  whose  life  becomes  more  and  more 
precarious." 

Now,  this  "elimination"  of  the  small  manufacturer 
and  dealer  is  a  very  slow  and  relative  process.  While 
the  large  concerns  are  encroaching  upon  the  territory  of 
the  smaller,  the  latter  are  increasing  absolutely.  In 
the  field  of  merchandising  the  small  dealers  are  probably 
growing  quite  as  fast  as  the  urban  population.  More- 
over, the  displaced  small  independents  become  receivers 
of  salaries  rather  than  wages,  and  consequently  more 
closely  affiliated  with  the  capitalist  class  than  with  the 
proletariat. 

As  to  "accretions  from  the  farming  population,"  we 
find  that  between  1900  and  1910  the  number  of  farms  in 
the  United  States  increased  at  the  same  rate  as  the  rural 
inhabitants,  while  the  increase  in  the  number  of  farmers 
who  owned  the  land  that  they  tilled  was  only  3  per  cent 
less  than  that  rate.  Since  farming  has  never  been  so 
prosperous  as  in  recent  years,  the  majority  of  those  who 
abandon  the  rural  regions  are  not  driven  to  do  so  because 
life  there  is  becoming  more  "precarious,"  but  because 
of  the  lure  of  the  city,  with  its  real  or  fancied  opportu- 
nities. 

With  regard  to  the  magnitude  and  growth  of  the  labour- 
ing class  in  America,  we  have  unfortunately  no  definite 
or  satisfactory  statistics.  While  our  wage-earners  and 
salary  receivers  combined  undeniably  constitute  a  ma- 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  119 

jority  of  all  the  persons  engaged  in  gainful  occupations, 
they  are  not  a  very  large  majority.  In  all  probability 
they  do  not  aggregate  more  than  seven-tenths.  Were 
all  the  voters  among  them  to  unite  at  the  ballot-box, 
they  could  undoubtedly  introduce,  for  the  moment  at 
least,  a  regime  of  Socialism. 

But  there  is  no  likelihood  that  they  would  all  thus 
unite.  A  considerable  section  of  them  can  never  be  con- 
vinced that  Socialism  is  feasible ;  another  large  section 
will  continue  to  oppose  the  project  on  religious  and  moral 
grounds ;  a  third  numerous  group  hope  to  become  inde- 
pendent business  men  under  the  present  system ;  while 
a  fourth  section,  including  the  majority  of  those  who  re- 
ceive salaries  rather  than  wages,  will  never  believe  that 
Socialism,  even  if  practicable,  would  be  economically 
and  otherwise  better  for  them  than  the  conditions  and  ad- 
vantages that  they  enjoy  under  the  present  regime. 

Although  it  is  probably  true  that  the  labouring  class  in 
the  wide  sense  here  denned  is  increasing  faster  than  the 
independent  farming  and  business  classes,  this  increase 
will  probably  be  more  than  neutralized  by  the  improve- 
ments in  their  condition  that  are  certain  to  come  through 
social  legislation,  and  through  participation  in  the  own- 
ership of  productive  property. 

Even  in  the  more  moderate  statement  of  my  opponent, 
therefore,  the  reasons  for  an  irresistible  "trend  toward 
Socialism"  are  neither  clear  nor  convincing. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  Engels  that  the  two  main  doc- 
trines of  the  Marxian  social  philosophy,  economic  deter- 
minism and  surplus  value,  had  converted  Socialism  from 
a  Utopia  into  a  science.  The  average  Socialist  never 


120  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

wearies  of  assuring  us  that  his  beloved  system  is  founded 
upon  the  inexorable  conclusions  of  science,  not  upon  mere 
Utopian  aspirations. 

In  truth,  this  so-called  scientific  basis,  this  philosophy 
that  we  have  been  examining,  is  not  scientific  at  all.  It 
is  for  the  most  part  an  a  priori  concoction ;  for  it  is  the 
product  of  a  misuse  of  the  deductive  method,  an  a  priori 
theory  of  reality,  and  a  partial  analysis  of  experience. 
It  represents  an  ingenious  but  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
force  the  facts  of  economic  and  social  life  into  the  Pro- 
crustean bed  of  theory.  We  must  remember  that  its 
elaborator,  Marx,  was  a  student  of  philosophy,  a  disciple 
of  Hegel,  before  he  became  a  Socialist.  His  method  al- 
ways remained  that  of  the  metaphysician  rather  than  the 
scientist.  Professor  Simkhovitch  calls  him  a  "nineteenth- 
century  materialist  in  the  garb  of  a  thirteenth-century 
schoolman."  If  he  had  said  a  "fifteenth-century  school- 
man, "  he  would  have  been  more  accurate  and  suggestive ; 
for  the  subtleties  in  which  Marx  so  often  indulges  call  to 
mind  scholasticism  in  its  decadence. 

Marx's  bad  use  of  the  deductive  method  is  well  illus- 
trated in  his  discussion  of  value  and  surplus  value.  By 
arbitrarily  eliminating  the  factors  of  utility  and  scarcity, 
he  rigorously  concludes  that  the  one  element  common  to 
all  commodities  in  exchange  is  labour,  and  therefore  that 
labour  is  the  sole  determinant  of  value.  By  reasoning 
logically  from  this  false  premise,  he  concludes  that  capital 
contributes  to  the  product  only  sufficient  value  to  repro- 
duce itself.  His  discussion  of  these  subjects  and  of  many 
others  gives  the  impression  of  a  man  dealing  with  a  world 
of  abstractions,  a  world  made  to  order,  not  the  actual 
world  of  industry  that  we  know. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  1 21 

His  a  priori  theory  of  reality  and  his  inadequate 
analysis  of  concrete  fact  are  evident  in  the  theories  of 
economic  determinism  and  the  class  struggle.  A  priori 
he  held  to  the  Hegelian  doctrine  of  social  evolution 
through  the  clash  of  contradictory  elements  terminating 
in  a  final  and  absolute  synthesis ;  observation  led  him  to 
an  exaggerated  notion  of  the  class  struggle ;  therefore, 
he  seems  to  have  concluded,  the  final  synthesis  is  Social- 
ism, and  Socialism  is  inevitable.  A  priori  he  believed 
that  all  that  exists  is  matter ;  observation  assured  him 
that  the  economic  factor  is  extremely  important  in  social 
life ;  therefore,  he  seems  to  have  concluded,  economico- 
material  forces  ultimately  and  necessarily  dominate 
and  determine  all  social  processes,  ideas,  and  institutions. 

Because  of  its  a  priori  materialism  the  Socialist  phi- 
losophy is  fatalistic.  As  expounded  by  practically  all  its 
prominent  advocates,  it  makes  the  economic  element  the 
original  and  decisive  element  in  social  life,  and  excludes 
the  reality  of  spirit.  It  does  not  attribute  our  economic 
evils  to  a  "faulty"  arrangement  of  society,  but  to  the 
inexorable  operation  of  economic  forces  and  economic 
evolution.  In  the  mind  and  imagination  of  the  thorough- 
going scientific  Socialist,  the  social  evolutionary  process 
seems  to  be  a  huge  and  unrelenting  mechanical  movement 
which  cannot  be  checked  by  any  mere  action  of  human 
beings.  Hence  he  refuses  to  become  discouraged  when  the 
term  that  he  sometimes  sets  for  the  arrival  of  Socialism 
has  gone  by,  or  when  his  prophecies  concerning  the  trend 
of  industrial  forces  are  falsified  by  the  logic  of  events. 
He  blithely  replies  that  he  was  mistaken  as  to  the  exact 
time,  but  that  he  is  quite  certain  of  the  inevitable  out- 
come. 


122  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Faith,  not  science,  is  the  soul  of  the  Socialist  philos- 
ophy ;  but  it  is  faith  suspended  in  the  vacant  air. 


III.   REJOINDER 

BY  MR.   HILLQUIT 

On  the  whole,  my  opponent's  reply  is  stronger  in  ad- 
missions than  in  denials.  The  main  foundations  of  the 
Marxian  philosophy,  as  I  have  outlined  it,  consists  of 
the  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  the  Class- 
struggle  doctrine,  and  the  theory  of  Surplus  Value.  Let 
us  see  how  my  opponent  deals  with  these  propositions. 

Dr.  Ryan  recognizes  that  economic  conditions  "exer- 
cise a  large  influence  upon  social  life,  ideas,  institutions, 
and  development" ;  that  "almost  all  our  political  prob- 
lems and  activities  are  entirely  or  fundamentally  eco- 
nomic," and  that  "even  ethical  notions  of  men  vary  con- 
siderably according  to  their  industrial  interests."  He 
claims,  however,  that  the  Marxian  Socialist  "magnifies 
the  r61e  of  the  economic  factor  beyond  all  plausibility." 
This  criticism  would  be  vastly  more  illuminating  if  he 
would  or  could  inform  us  at  what  point  the  economic 
factor  loses  its  efficacy  as  a  propelling  cause  hi  social 
development. 

It  is  true  that  he  condemns  the  efforts  of  Achille  Loria 
and  Karl  Kautsky  to  analyze  the  economic  factors  which 
in  their  opinion  led  to  the  origin  and  determined  the 
growth  of  the  Christian  religion  as  extravagant  and 
fantastic,  and  that  he  characterizes  the  alleged  inclina- 
tions of  "so  many"  Socialists  to  reduce  all  vice  and 
crime  to  economic  causes  as  crude  and  superficial;  but 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  123 

these  adjectives  come  more  properly  within  the  province 
of  rhetoric  than  the  category  of  proof. 

With  similar  candour  Dr.  Ryan  admits  that  "class 
divisions  based  upon  divergent  economic  interests  are  an 
indisputable  fact."  He  even  concedes  that  "there  exists 
'a  certain  sort  of  class  struggle  between  a  large  section 
of  the  wage-earners  and  a  large  section  of  the  capitalists," 
and  goes  so  far  as  to  accept  the  purely  Socialist  view  that 
the  average  member  of  the  legislature  represents  the 
economic  interests  of  the  class  with  which  he  is  most 
closely  affiliated,  and  to  indorse  the  practical  Socialist 
conclusion  that  each  class  (consequently  also  the  working- 
class)  must  have  "its  own  representatives  in  every  legis- 
lature." 

What  remains  of  his  opposition  to  the  Marxian  view 
of  the  class  struggle  seems  to  me  to  be  based  partly  on 
a  misunderstanding  of  that  view  and  partly  on  a  faulty 
estimate  of  the  social  forces  at  work  in  modern  society. 

Socialists  do  not  attempt  to  reduce  the  number  of 
existing  economic  classes  to  two,  as  erroneously  assumed 
by  Dr.  Ryan.  The  existence  of  "numerous  economic 
interest  groups  between  and  alongside  of  capitalists 
and  wage- workers "  was  specifically  pointed  out  by  me 
in  the  main  paper  on  this  subject.  What  the  Socialists, 
however,  do  claim,  is  that  the  two  last-mentioned  classes 
are  the  most  important  factors  in  modern  society,  and 
that  the  conflict  between  them  constitutes  the  dominant 
issue  and  tends  to  determine  the  ultimate  alignment 
of  all  other  classes. 

But  Dr.  Ryan  assures  us  that  the  conditions  of  a 
"genuine  class  struggle"  would  always  be  wanting,  for 
the  reason  that  a  very  large  portion  of  the  wage-workers 


124  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

"would  refuse,  and  do  refuse,  to  become  involved." 
In  reply  to  this  I  take  the  liberty  of  reminding  him  that 
the  class  struggle  is  not  a  polite  social  function.  It 
issues  no  invitations  and  accepts  no  declinations.  The 
"class  struggle,"  in  the  Marxian  interpretation  of  the 
term,  does  not  necessarily  involve  overt,  conscious,  or 
violent  conflicts  —  it  signifies  an  antagonism  of  economic 
interests,  created  by  the  inexorable  conditions  of  capital- 
ist production  and  not  by  the  will  or  disposition  of  in- 
dividuals ;  and  in  this,  the  only  true  sense  of  the  term, 
every  wage-worker  is  already  deeply  involved  in  the  class 
struggle. 

Dr.  Ryan's  assertion  that  the  class  divisions  in  the 
United  States  "do  not  yield  material  for  a  class  struggle 
of  any  great  importance"  must  be  taken  to  mean  that 
the  majority  of  the  population  are  economically  inter- 
ested in  upholding  the  present  system  of  private  Capital- 
ism, and  would  therefore  oppose  the  Socialist  plan  of 
cooperative  production.  In  support  of  this  contention 
he  quotes  Mr.  Streightoff,  who  is  alleged  to  have  made 
the  discovery  that "  about  twenty-four  million  individuals 
in  the  United  States  possess  some  income-bearing  prop- 
erty other  than  government  and  corporation  securities." 
Mr.  Streightoff  himself  does  not  make  his  claim  quite 
so  strong.  He  says :  — 

"There  are  probably  nine  millions  of  individuals  re- 
ceiving some  returns  on  savings  accounts,  and  upward 
of  five  millions  indirectly  obtaining  profit  from  partici- 
pating life-insurance  policies.  About  five  million  per- 
sons possess  agricultural  land  and  perhaps  as  many  more 
hold  residential  real  estate."  l 

1 "  The  Distribution  of  Incomes  in  the  United  States,"  p.  146. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  125 

Mr.  Streightoff's  figures  are  somewhat  misleading. 
According  to  the  census  returns  of  1900,  3,653,323 
farmers  owned  all  or  part  of  their  land.  The  estimate 
of  five  million  owners  of  residential  real  estate  is  quite 
arbitrary.  A  considerable  portion  of  farm  owners  prob- 
ably appear  again  as  owners  of  "residential"  real  estate, 
and  the  possessors  of  the  two  classes  of  property  un- 
doubtedly comprise  a  large  part  of  the  savings-banks 
depositors  and  policy-holders.  Mr.  Streightoff  seems  to 
appreciate  the  inconclusiveness  of  his  figures,  and  sums 
up  his  speculations  in  one  terse  and  telling  sentence : 
"To  attempt  to  estimate  the  distribution  of  income 
from  property  would  be  absurd." 

But  Dr.  Ryan  takes  the  estimates  as  proven  truths, 
adds  the  full  figures,  elevates  every  individual  who 
chances  to  have  a  dollar  in  a  savings-bank  or  to  carry 
a  small  insurance  policy  to  the  rank  of  an  owner  of 
"income-bearing"  property,  and  with  one  bold  stroke 
of  the  pen  creates  twenty-four  million  property  holders 
outside  of  the  uncounted  millions  who  possess  govern- 
ment securities  and  securities  of  corporations.  If  our 
population  were  so  overwhelmingly  capitalistic  as  these 
figures  would  indicate,  this  country  would  indeed  offer 
little  room  for  class  struggles. 

But  what  are  the  facts  ? 

According  to  the  census  of  1900  the  total  number  of 
persons,  ten  years  old  and  over,  engaged  in  gainful 
occupations  in  the  United  States,  was  a  little  over 
29,000,000. 

Of  the  persons  engaged  in  manufacture  5,373,108  were 
classified  as  "wage-earners,"  while  708,738  were  desig- 
nated as  proprietors  and  firm  members.  According  to 


126  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

the  Report  on  Manufactures  of  1909,  63.2  per  cent  of 
the  manufacturing  establishments  produced  less  than 
$20,000  per  annum,  while  the  remaining  36.8  per  cent 
produced  upward  of  $20,000.  Let  us  classify  the  pro- 
prietors of  the  former  as  "small  producers"  or  "middle- 
class"  manufacturers  and  those  of  the  latter  as  "large 
producers"  or  capitalists.  On  this  basis  we  obtain  ap- 
proximately 254,810  capitalists  and  447,928  members  of 
the  middle  class  in  the  manufacturing  industries. 

For  the  10,472,011  persons  enumerated  under  the  two 
heads  of  "Domestic  and  Personal  Service"  and  "Trade 
and  Transportation"  the  census  does  not  give  a  similar 
division  by  classes,  but  the  subenumerations  of  specific 
occupations  furnish  a  tolerably  reliable  guide  to  the 
economic  status  of  the  persons  engaged  in  them. 

Thus  we  may  consider  as  capitalists  all  persons  desig- 
nated as  bankers  and  brokers,  officials  of  banks  and 
companies,  and  wholesale  merchants  and  dealers.  To 
the  hybrid  middle  class  we  may  relegate  all  small  inde- 
pendent business  men,  such  as  barbers ;  hotel,  restaurant, 
boarding-house,  livery-stable,  and  saloon  keepers;  re- 
tail merchants,  "hucksters  and  pedlers,"  and  even 
undertakers ;  also  all  individuals  engaged  in  professional 
and  semi-professional  service,  including  free  practitioners, 
clerks,  bookkeepers,  foremen,  commercial  travellers, 
agents,  soldiers,  policemen,  and  housekeepers. 

The  column  of  "wage-earners"  will  be  made  up  ex- 
clusively of  hired  manual  labourers. 

The  agricultural  population  consisted  of  10,410,877 
persons.  Of  these  about  4,530,000  were  "farm  hands" 
or  other  hired  labourers,  while  the  remainder  consisted  of 
"farm  operators."  Only  527,637  farms  had  an  area  of 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  127 

260  acres  or  more.  We  will  assume  that  each  of  these 
farms  had  a  separate  owner,  and  will  consider  such  big- 
farm  owners  as  agricultural  capitalists,  classifying  the 
owners  or  cultivators  of  the  smaller-sized  farms  with  the 
all-embracing  "middle  class." 

On  this  basis  we  reach  the  following  class  division  of 
the  active  American  population :  — 

Capitalists: 

Manufacturing  and  Mechanical 254,810 

Trade  and  Transportation 189,675 

Farmers 527,637 

Total 972,122 

Middle  Class: 

Manufacturing  and  Mechanical       447,928 

Trade  and  Transportation 2,242,397 

Domestic  and  Personal  Service 790,834 

Professional  Service  (all) 1,258,538 

Farmers       5,880,877 

Total 10,620,574 

Wage-earners: 

Manufacturing  and  Mechanical 5,373,108 

Trade  and  Transportation 2,334,892 

Domestic  and  Personal  Service 4,789,823 

Farm  Labourers 4,530,000 

Total 17,027,823 

To  complete  our  calculations  we  must  add  the  "un- 
employed" of  both  classes,  capitalists  and  wage- workers. 
To  be  generous  with  the  former  we  will  assume  that  one- 
third  of  their  total  number  follow  the  sole  and  exclusive 
vocation  of  being  idle,  while  two-thirds  are  engaged  in 
some  "gainful"  occupation  —  thus  adding  another 


128  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

500,000,  in  round  figures,  to  their  numbers.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  number  of  wage-earners  enumerated 
in  the  census  is  based  on  the  "average"  actually  em- 
ployed on  specified  days,  and  does  not  take  into  account 
the  workers  temporarily  or  permanently  without  jobs. 
Since  the  number  of  persons  unemployed  during  some 
time  of  the  year  amounted,  according  to  the  same  census, 
to  no  less  than  6,468,964,  it  is  safe  to  add  an  average  of 
1,500,000  to  the  column  of  wage- workers. 

Thus  the  total  number  of  American  capitalists  does 
not  exceed  in  round  numbers  1,500,000;  that  of  the 
"middle  classes"  may  reach  about  10,500,000,  while  the 
number  of  wage-workers  must  be  conservatively  esti- 
mated at  about  18,500,000. 

Of  the  30,500,000  persons  figuring  in  our  estimate 
only  1,500,000  are  unquestioned  beneficiaries  of  the  capi- 
talist system  and  interested  in  its  con tinuation  ;  18,500,000 
are  its  victims  and  economically  interested  in  its  abro- 
gation. Of  the  remaining  10,500,000  persons,  designated 
as  the  middle  class  or  classes,  the  majority  are  in  revolt 
against  the  existing  system.  More  than  a  third  of  the 
American  farmers  are  mere  tenants,  whose  lot  is  often 
worse  than  that  of  the  wage-worker,  and  the  greater 
part  of  the  farm-owners  are  exploited  by  the  mortgagees, 
railroad  companies,  and  other  capitalist  agencies  almost 
as  much  as  the  wage-worker.  The  professional  men  and 
"salaried"  employees  likewise  feel  the  burdens  of  eco- 
nomic pressure  weighing  on  them  ever  more  heavily  under 
Capitalism.  It  is  safe  to  assert  that  at  least  one-half 
of  the  persons  embraced  within  the  general  category 
of  the  "middle  classes"  are  justly  dissatisfied  with  the 
existing  order. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  129 

Adding  these  to  the  number  of  the  wage-workers,  we 
obtain  about  23,750,000  persons,  or  about  78  per  cent 
of  the  entire  active  population,  who  are  materially  in- 
terested in  a  change  of  the  present  economic  system  and 
may  be  regarded  as  possible  candidates  for  enlistment  in 
the  Socialist  movement. 

Dr.  Ryan  admits  that  the  economic  dependents  con- 
stitute a  large  majority  of  the  population  and  have  it 
within  their  power  to  bring  about  a  "  regime  of  Socialism  " 
by  united  action ;  but  he  consoles  himself  with  the  placid 
assumption  that  they  would  not  make  use  of  that  power, 
for  various  reasons.  The  assumption  is  rather  unwar- 
ranted in  view  of  the  steady  and  rapid  growth  of  Socialism 
and  other  radical  economic  movements  in  all  advanced 
countries  of  the  world. 

Toward  the  Marxian  theory  of  Surplus  Value  Dr. 
Ryan  is  less  conciliatory  than  toward  the  doctrines  of 
Economic  Determinism  and  of  the  Class  Struggle.  He 
dismisses  it  summarily  as  "a  pedantic  and  mystifying 
formulation  of  things  that  are  either  obvious,  improvable, 
unimportant,  or  untrue." 

Dr.  Ryan's  own  theory  of  the  origin  of  wealth  is  stated 
in  the  following  terse  sentence:  "Since  the  product 
would  not  come  into  existence  at  all  if  either  capital  or 
labour  were  wanting,  and  since  every  part  of  it  is  due  in 
some  degree  to  the  action  of  both,  it  is  quite  impossible 
to  determine  how  much  of  the  product  is  specifically 
attributable  to  either  factor."  Let  us  examine  this 
seemingly  plausible  statement. 

Every  modern  commodity  or  "product"  is  created  by 
the  concurrence  of  three  factors  —  raw  material,  machin- 


130  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ery,  and  human  labour.  It  is  the  first  two  factors  which 
my  opponent  comprehends  under  the  term  "capital." 
Now  raw  material  and  machinery  are  themselves  "prod- 
ucts" created  by  the  application  of  labour  to  objects 
found  in  a  "raw"  or  "natural"  state  in  or  on  the  earth, 
and  in  the  last  analysis  every  commodity  thus  owes  its 
existence  to  the  free  gifts  of  nature  plus  various  succeed- 
ing processes  of  human  labour,  manual  or  mental.  If 
by  his  assertion  that  capital  and  labour  are  equally  re- 
quired for  creating  the  product  Dr.  Ryan  merely  intends 
to  say  that  under  the  present  system  the  capitalists 
have  monopolized  the  resources  of  the  earth  in  their 
original  or  "raw"  form  as  well  as  in  the  more  perfected 
form  of  modern  machinery,  and  that  labour  is  helpless 
without  that  monopolized  "raw "  material  and  machinery 
and  must  yield  part  of  its  fruit  for  their  use,  he  states 
what  is  truly  "obvious";  and  if  he  means  to  imply 
that  there  exists  some  mysterious  active  factor  in  pro- 
duction known  as  "capital,"  and  independent  of  natural 
resources  and  instruments  of  work,  he  states  what  is 
obviously  "untrue." 

It  is  not  claimed  that  Marx  discovered  the  very  patent 
fact  that  the  capitalist's  ownership  of  the  instruments  of 
production  enables  him  to  exploit  the  worker.  It  is 
the  formulation  of  the  mode  and  process  of  such  exploi- 
tation which  constitutes  Marx's  politico-economic  dis- 
covery known  as  the  theory  of  "surplus  value." 

Dr.  Ryan  takes  exception  to  the  part  of  the  surplus- 
value  theory  which  holds  that  wages  are  determined  by 
the  cost  of  maintaining  the  worker  in  conformity  with 
his  established  standard  of  life,  on  the  ground  that  such 
standard  is  quite  "elastic  and  relative."  So  it  is,  and  so 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  131 

is  practically  every  other  social  standard.  The  Socialists 
are  the  first  to  recognize  this  undeniable  truth,  hence 
their  constant  efforts  to  raise  the  standard  of  the  workers' 
life.  But  apart  from  the  slight  and  slow  oscillations,  the 
"established  standard  of  life"  of  a  specified  class  of  people 
is  a  tolerably  concrete  and  measurable  factor,  as  we  will 
readily  perceive  by  a  comparison  of  the  lives  and  require- 
ments of  the  American  mechanic  and  the  Chinese  labourer. 
And  it  is  quite  as  unprofitable  in  this  connection  to  specu- 
late whether  wages  first  determined  the  standard  of  life 
or  vice  versa,  as  it  is  to  try  to  establish  the  chronological 
priority  between  the  hen  and  the  egg. 

The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  the  doctrine 
of  Class  Struggle,  and  the  theory  of  Surplus  Value  con- 
stitute the  main  features  of  the  Marxian  philosophy  and 
are  generally  accepted  by  all  its  adherents.  But  within 
the  ranks  of  the  Marxists  themselves  there  have  recently 
developed  two  divergent  schools  of  thought.  The  older 
school  of  "orthodox"  Marxians  has  for  its  spiritual  head 
the  well-known  Socialist  writer  Karl  Kautsky,  while 
the  newer  school  of  "revisionists"  or  "neo "-Marxians 
is  represented  most  prominently  by  the  Socialist  member 
of  the  German  Reichstag,  Eduard  Bernstein.  The 
controversy  between  the  two  contending  schools  turns, 
among  other  things,  on  the  merits  and  interpretation  of 
a  brief  passage  from  Marx's  "Capital,"  which  reads  sub- 
stantially as  follows :  — 

"Along  with  the  constantly  diminishing  number  of 
the  magnates  of  capital  who  monopolize  all  advantages 
of  this  transformation  (the  economic  development  of 
capitalism),  grows  the  mass  of  misery,  oppression,  sla- 


132  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

very,  degradation  and  exploitation  of  the  workers ;  but 
with  it  also  grows  the  revolt  of  the  working-class,  a  class 
always  increasing  in  numbers,  and  disciplined,  united 
and  organized  by  the  mechanism  of  the  process  of  capi- 
talist production  itself.  .  .  .  Centralization  of  the 
means  of  production  and  socialization  of  labour  at  last 
reach  a  point  where  they  become  incompatible  with  their 
capitalist  shell,  which  is  burst  asunder." 

The  "revisionist"  Socialists  deny  that  the  general  con- 
dition of  the  working-classes  shows  a  tendency  toward 
progressive  deterioration  ;  they  maintain  that  the  wage- 
workers  are  not  increasing  in  numbers  as  fast  as  Marx 
predicted ;  that  they  do  not  absorb  the  "middle  classes," 
and  that  the  latter  have  lately  taken  a  new  lease  of  life 
by  changing  their  economic  form  and  function  —  dis- 
appearing as  independent  small  business  men,  but 
reappearing  as  stockholders  and  officers  of  large  corpora- 
tions. The  "revisionists"  finally  deny  the  alleged  ten- 
dency of  capital  to  concentrate  in  the  hands  of  a  "con- 
stantly diminishing"  number  of  individuals. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  orthodox  Marxians,  while  they 
are  ready  to  admit  an  absolute  process  of  improvement 
in  the  lot  of  the  worker,  claim  that  his  condition  is  one 
of  relative  social  and  economic  deterioration,  that  his 
share  in  the  total  product  is  steadily  diminishing,  and  that 
his  subsistence  grows  ever  more  precarious.  They  main- 
tain that  the  progressive  process  of  transformation  of  the 
middle  classes  from  independent  producers  or  traders 
into  salaried  employees  tends  to  alienate  them  more  and 
more  from  the  capitalist  class  and  to  couple  their  for- 
tunes with  those  of  the  wage-earning  classes,  thus  sub- 
stantially justifying  Marx's  prediction.  And,  finally, 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  133 

they  contend  that  while  the  predicted  concentration  of 
capital  has  not  been  materialized  in  the  shape  of  an  ever 
decreasing  number  of  wealthy  individuals,  it  has  been 
brilliantly  fulfilled  through  the  concentration  and  con- 
trol of  capital  in  the  hands  of  the  powerful  modern  trusts 
and  business  combines. 

Personally,  I  am  inclined  toward  the  "orthodox" 
view,  but  I  purposely  omitted  the  controversy  from  my 
introductory  statement  of  the  Socialist  philosophy  for 
the  reason  that  it  is  a  big  and  complex  subject  which  can- 
not be  adequately  treated  in  a  popular  discussion  on 
the  general  subject  of  Socialism,  and  for  the  still  stronger 
reason  that  the  subject  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  present 
debate.  The  controversy  between  the  "revisionist" 
and  "orthodox"  Marxians  is  an  internal  affair  of  the 
Socialist  movement.  It  may  influence  the  Socialist 
tactics  and  methods,  but  it  does  not  affect  the  general 
Socialist  viewpoint  or  the  ultimate  aim  and  objects  of 
the  movement. 

The  best  proof  of  this  assertion  is  the  fact  that  Eduard 
Bernstein,  whom  Dr.  Ryan  cites  as  his  principal 
authority,  is  and  remains  an  active  and  militant  Socialist. 
If  the  facts  and  figures  so  elaborately  compiled  by  Dr. 
Ryan  on  the  subject  above  indicated  be  sustained,  they 
support  the  position  of  the  "revisionist"  Socialist,  Ed- 
uard Bernstein ;  if  they  be  disproved,  the  position  of 
the  "orthodox"  Socialist,  Karl  Kautsky,  is  vindicated; 
but  in  no  event  do  they  offer  any  solace  or  comfort  to  the 
anti-Socialist,  John  A.  Ryan. 


134  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

IV.  SURREJOINDER 

BY  DR.   RYAN 

In  his  rejoinder  my  opponent  declares  that  I  have  not 
specifically  supported  my  contention  that  the  Marxian 
philosophy  exaggerates  the  social  importance  of  economic 
factors.  Such  specific  proof  could  not  be  given,  owing 
to  lack  of  space,  and  need  not  be  given,  inasmuch  as  the 
subject  will  come  up  again  in  the  articles  on  morality 
and  religion.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  mere  statement 
of  Kautsky's  theory  of  the  development  of  Christianity, 
and  of  the  theory  that  all  vice,  crime,  and  sin  are  due 
to  economic  causes,  was  a  sufficient  refutation  of  these 
extraordinary  views. 

Here  I  shall  simply  call  attention  to  two  important 
and  incontestable  facts :  — 

First,  the  authentic  documents  which  describe  the  rise 
of  Christianity  show  no  trace  of  an  industrial  or  social 
reform  movement;  and,  second,  the  most  typical  and 
widespread  vices,  crimes,  and  sins,  such  as  intemperance, 
unchastity,  lying,  calumny,  indolence,  revenge,  violence, 
and  greed,  permeate  all  classes  in  approximately  the  same 
degree,  and  would  continue  in  any  form  of  society  that 
could  be  devised. 

In  connection  with  the  first  of  these  points  I  would 
call  attention  to  the  brief  but  convincing  refutation  of 
Engels'  explanation  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  and 
of  Calvinism,  given  on  pages  34-41  of  Professor  Sim- 
khovitch's  recent  work,  "Marxism  versus  Socialism." 

I  am  reminded  by  my  opponent  that  the  class  struggle 
"is  not  a  polite  social  function,  .  .  .  but  an  antagonism 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  135 

of  economic  interests,  created  by  the  inexorable  condi- 
tions of  capitalist  production."  But  the  antagonism 
between  the  buyers  and  sellers  of  labour  power  no  more 
implies  a  struggle  for  the  overthrow  of  the  wage  system 
than  the  similar  antagonism  between  the  buyers  and 
sellers  of  goods  means  a  contest  to  abolish  the  system 
of  economic  exchange.  In  the  American  trade-union 
movement  the  majority  are  quite  well  aware  of  the  antag- 
onism of  interests  existing  between  themselves  and  their 
employers,  but  they  are  contending  for  higher  wages  and 
other  improvements  in  their  economic  condition,  not  for 
the  destruction  of  Capitalism.  Should  this  contest  for 
better  conditions  within  the  present  order  continue  to 
be  successful,  they  may  refrain  forever  from  making 
the  conflict  so  intense  or  carrying  it  so  far  as  Mr.  Hillquit 
assumes  and  hopes. 

The  inference  that  the  class  struggle  must  go  to  this 
extreme  is  not  warranted  by  the  mere  fact  of  interest- 
antagonisms.  Both  parties  may  find  that  they  have  a 
common  interest  in  maintaining  the  present  system,  just 
as  the  buyers  and  sellers  of  goods  realize  that  exchange 
is  better  than  independent  and  isolated  production. 
My  opponent's  forecast  of  a  class  struggle  for  the  over- 
throw of  Capitalism  is  based,  not  upon  tendencies  ex- 
perimentally evident  in  contemporary  industry,  but 
upon  an  apocalyptic  theory  of  those  tendencies.  It  is 
a  lingering  echo  of  that  Marxian  aprioristic  fatalism 
and  utopianism  which  had  a  vision  of  economic  deter- 
minism leading  inevitably  to  concentration  of  capital, 
impoverishment  of  labour,  social  revolution,  and  final 
reconciliation  of  the  warring  elements  in  the  golden  age 
of  Socialism. 


136  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Turning  from  theory  to  statistics,  Mr.  Hillquit  ques- 
tions Professor  Streightoff's  and  my  own  estimates  of 
the  number  of  persons  who  own  income-bearing  property 
in  the  United  States.  While  he  points  out  that  the 
census  of  1900  reported  only  3,653,823  farmers  (in  1910 
the  number  was  3,948,722)  as  owning  all  or  a  part  of 
their  farms,  he  fails  to  note  that  the  census  covers  only 
farmers,  farm  operators,  not  farm  owners. 

It  reports  only  those  owners  who  are  also  cultivators, 
paying  no  attention  to  those  rural  proprietors  who  are 
not  themselves  engaged  in  farming.  According  to  the 
same  census,  there  were  more  than  two  million  tenant 
farmers.  Now  it  is  entirely  probable  that  the  majority 
of  the  owners  of  the  rented  farms  were  not  themselves 
farm  operators,  and  therefore  do  not  appear  in  the  census 
figures.  When  these  are  added  to  the  3,948,722  culti- 
vating owners  (census  of  1910)  the  sum  will  undoubtedly 
reach  5,000,000.  Moreover,  this  number  omits  entirely 
the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  owners  of  rural  land  which 
has  not  yet  been  brought  under  the  plough. 

If  my  opponent's  objections  to  the  other  items  in 
Professor  Streightoff's  estimates  have  no  sounder  basis 
than  the  one  just  examined,  they  may  be  summarily  set 
aside.  That  many  owners  appear  more  than  once  in 
the  different  totals  I  have  already  admitted;  but  I 
insist  that  when  all  reasonable  deductions  on  this  account 
are  made  from  the  grand  total  of  24,000,000,  and  when 
the  remainder  is  increased  by  the  "uncounted  millions 
who  possess  government  securities  and  the  securities  of 
corporations,"  the  final  result  may  be  put  quite  conser- 
vatively at  26,000,000.  This  is  a  majority  of  the  persons 
in  the  United  States  whose  age  was  twenty  years  and 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  137 

over  in  1910.     It  will  stand  as  a  reasonable  estimate  until 
it  is  overthrown  by  specific  statistics  and  arguments. 

Mr.  Hillquit  submits  an  analysis  of  the  census  report 
of  1900  on  "Occupations,"  from  which  he  deduces  the 
following  conclusions :  — 

Capitalists 1,500,000 

Members  of  Middle  Classes 10,500,000 

Wage-earners 18,500,000 

To  these  estimates  I  would  take  only  a  single  excep- 
tion. Of  the  four  and  one-half  million  farm  labourers  in 
the  census  tables,  2,366,313  are  described  as  "members 
of  family."  1  At  least  one  million  of  these  are  surely 
more  akin  to  the  middle  classes  in  ideas  and  condition 
than  to  the  wage-earners.  When  we  transfer  them  to  the 
former  division,  we  have  11,500,000  members  of  middle 
classes,  and  17,500,000  in  the  wage-earning  class. 

Probably  the  most  painstaking  attempt  to  discover 
from  the  census  tables  the  relative  strength  of  the  differ- 
ent economic  classes  is  seen  in  two  articles  by  Isaac  A. 
Hourwich  in  Volume  XIX  of  the  American  Journal  of 
Political  Economy.  The  writer  is,  I  believe,  a  Socialist. 
According  to  his  computations,  the  total  number  of 
wage-earners  is  a  little  less  than  sixteen  million  (p.  205), 
or  a  little  more  than  half  the  number  of  persons  in  all 
gainful  occupations.  As  Mr.  Hourwich  took  no  account 
of  the  unemployed,  his  estimate  of  the  number  of  wage- 
earners  proves  to  be  about  the  same  as  that  of  Mr. 
Hillquit,  when  the  latter  is  corrected  by  eliminating  one 
million  members  of  farm  families. 

However,   Mr.   Hourwich  estimates  the  number  of 

1  "Occupations,"  p.  xxiii. 


138  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

industrial  wage-earners,  that  is,  the  manual  workers  en- 
gaged in  urban  and  strictly  capitalist  industries,  at  a  little 
less  than  ten  million.  In  his  view  only  these  are  likely 
to  become  actively  engaged  in  a  working-class  movement. 
The  other  six  million  wage-earners,  together  with  the 
salaried  classes,  the  professional  and  quasi-professional 
classes,  the  agents  and  the  travelling  men,  are  grouped 
by  him  under  the  head  of  the  "public,"  or  the  middle 
classes.  His  conclusion  as  to  the  relative  strength  of 
the  three  great  economic  groups  is :  industrial  wage- 
earners,  34.8  per  cent;  the  public,  31.3  per  cent;  entre- 
preneurs, or  the  business  class,  27.7  per  cent. 

Professor  Commons  arrives  at  a  very  similar  conclu- 
sion. In  his  opinion,  only  one-third  of  the  adult  males 
of  the  country  are  available  for  a  class  conflict,  nor  are 
the  other  two-thirds  likely  to  be  drawn  into  it  in  the 
near  future.1 

These  estimates  of  the  proportion  of  our  industrial 
population  which  is  likely  to  be  drawn  into  an  active 
class  conflict  conform  much  more  closely  to  the  facts 
than  does  the  view  of  Mr.  Hillquit.  The  economic 
grievances  of  the  farming,  salaried,  and  professional 
classes,  and  the  growth  of  "radical  economic  move- 
ments," upon  which  he  relies,  mean  nothing  more  than 
a  need  and  a  demand  for  reforms.  At  present  they  do 
not  express  nor  consciously  include  a  desire  for  Socialism. 
The  various  groups  of  persons  who  feel  these  grievances 
are  "possible  candidates  for  enlistment  in  the  Socialist 
movement"  only  in  the  sense  that  all  things  are  possible. 

1  The  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  May,  1908.  Cf.  the  excellent 
analysis  of  the  situation  by  Simkhovitch  in  "Marxism  versus  Socialism," 
pp.  216-224. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  139 

Not  until  their  demands  and  hopes  for  social  reform 
within  the  present  system  have  been  proved  futile  will 
any  important  percentage  of  them  become  probable 
candidates  for  Mr.  Hillquit's  movement.  His  faith  that 
they  will  sooner  or  later  reach  this  position  is,  of  course, 
based  upon  his  hope  that  mere  social  reform  will  fail. 
This  is  a  purely  a  priori  assumption. 

Concerning  the  "steady  and  rapid  growth  of  Social- 
ism," which  is  another  element  in  the  foundation  of  his 
faith,  there  are  many  signs  that  it  has  already  received 
a  serious  check.  The  numerous  desertions  from  the 
organized  movement  in  more  than  one  country  of  Eu- 
rope, but  especially  in  Germany,  and  even  in  the  United 
States,  the  bitter  internal  dissensions  created  by  Syn- 
dicalism, I.-W.-W.-ism,  and  other  elements,  and  the 
better  education  of  the  public  with  regard  to  the  real 
nature,  arms,  and  affinities  of  Socialism,  are  some  of  the 
more  important  facts  which  point  to  this  conclusion. 

Of  course,  I  never  had  any  intention  of  denying  that 
capital  springs  ultimately  from  the  union  of  labour  and 
the  raw  material  of  nature.  In  passing,  I  would  observe, 
however,  that  the  "crystallized  labour  "  in  capital  is  not 
the  labour  of  the  men  who  now  work  with  the  capital. 
Hence  their  labour  has  not  created  the  whole  product. 
My  real  point  was  that  Marx's  assertion  is  unprovable, 
to  wit:  "The  means  of  production  never  transfer  more 
value  to  the  product  than  they  themselves  lose  during 
the  labour  process."  1  The  contribution  of  the  two  fac- 
tors, labour  and  capital,  to  the  product  cannot  possibly 
be  distinguished.  Consequently  we  have  no  means  of 
*" Capital,"  i,  p.  116;  Humboldt  Edition. 


140  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

knowing  how  much  of  the  product's  value  is  due  to 
either  present  or  "crystallized"  labour. 

Not  the  fact,  but  the  "mode  and  process,"  of  capitalist 
exploitation,  says  my  opponent,  constitute  the  "dis- 
covery" in  the  theory  of  surplus  value.  Yet  the  mode 
and  process  have  always  been  quite  as  obvious  as  the 
fact  itself.  The  statement  of  the  "discovery,"  either 
in  my  opponent's  pages  or  in  Part  III  of  the  first  volume 
of  "Capital,"  merely  amounts  to  this  :  Since  only  a  part 
of  the  product  of  industry  is  needed  to  support  the 
labourer  in  conformity  with  his  established  standard  of 
living,  the  capitalist  takes  the  remainder  because  he  has 
the  power  to  take  it.  The  truth  in  this  formula  was 
surely  quite  as  obvious  to  intelligent  men  before  the 
days  of  Marx  as  it  has  since  been  to  those  who  have 
never  read  a  line  of  "Capital." 

The  "established-standard-of -living  theory"  is  fre- 
quently so  presented  in  Socialist  propaganda  as  to  imply 
that  the  worker  gets  only  a  bare  subsistence.  Of  course, 
this  is  not  true,  nor  did  Marx  himself  ever  include  it  in 
his  statement  of  the  theory.  In  the  second  place, 
wages  are  not  always  regulated  by  the  standard  of  living. 
When  wages  are  forced  up  by  a  strong  labour  union,  or 
down  by  a  commercial  crisis,  they  become,  with  reference 
to  the  standard  of  living,  cause  instead  of  effect. 

Mr.  Hillquit  is  right  in  his  statement  that  the  "re- 
visionist" controversy  is  outside  the  issue  in  this  debate. 
Hence  I  did  not  bring  it  in.  I  barely  alluded  to  it  in 
connection  with  the  name  of  Bernstein. 

To  that  part  of  the  Marxian  theory  about  which  the 
controversy  rages  I  did,  however,  give  considerable 
space.  I  wanted  to  discuss  the  Socialist  philosophy  in 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM  141 

its  entirety  as  expounded  by  Marx,  rather  than  confine 
myself  to  a  version  from  which  all  the  troublesome  and 
controverted  elements  had  been  tenderly  expurgated. 

The  most  concrete  and  appealing  part  of  the  Marxian 
philosophy  is  the  theory  of  the  class  struggle ;  the  most 
vital  and  popular  element  of  the  latter  is  the  prophecy 
of  "increasing  misery."  It  supplies  the  ordinary 
Socialist,  "the  man  in  the  street,"  with  an  easily  grasped 
reason  for  his  indictment  of  the  present  order,  and  for 
his  faith  in  the  near  approach  of  the  Collective  Common- 
wealth. It  still  plays  an  important  part  in  the  Socialist 
propaganda,  is  still  in  substance  accepted  by  the  ma- 
jority in  the  Socialist  movement. 

Take  away  this  prophecy,  and  the  class  struggle  be- 
comes "Marxism  with  Marx  left  out."  Convert  this 
prophecy  into  the  statement  that  the  working  classes 
are  advancing  less  rapidly  than  the  capitalists,  and 
that  the  middle  classes  are  becoming  salary  receivers, 
and  you  make  the  class  struggle,  perhaps  not  a  "polite 
social  function,"  but  a  sham  battle,  a  sort  of  social 
wrist-slapping  contest.  You  have  taken  out  of  the 
class-struggle  theory  all  those  emotional,  catastrophic, 
and  revolutionary  features  which  have  always  exhibited 
it  to  its  faithful  disciples  as  the  pledge  and  the  prelude 
of  the  imminent  fall  of  Capitalism. 

In  the  opinion  of  my  esteemed  opponent,  the  facts 
and  figures  that  I  have  marshalled  against  the  increasing 
misery  doctrine  tend  to  support  the  position  of  Bern- 
stein, the  Socialist,  but  give  no  solace  or  comfort  to 
Ryan,  the  anti-Socialist.  Were  I  combating  the  Social- 
ism of  Bernstein,  I  should  not,  indeed,  make  use  of  these 


142  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

data.  Neither  would  he  employ  them  in  defence  of 
Socialism.  He  has  used  them  not  as  an  advocate,  but 
as  a  critic.  Are  they  not  quite  as  effective  in  the  hands 
of  any  other  critic  ?  While  they  do  not  overthrow  the 
entire  Socialist  argument,  they  are  good  and  pertinent 
against  the  majority  of  Socialists.  For  the  majority, 
like  my  opponent,  are  still  "inclined  toward  the  orthodox 
view." 

To  Kautsky,  the  most  authoritative  of  present-day 
Socialists,  these  facts  and  figures  seemed  to  have  a  tre- 
mendously ominous  significance.  "If  they  are  true, 
then  not  only  is  the  day  of  our  victory  postponed,  but 
we  can  never  reach  our  aim.  If  capitalists  are  on  the 
increase  and  not  the  propertyless,  then  development  is 
setting  us  back  further  and  further  from  our  goal,  then 
capital  intrenches  itself  and  not  Socialism,  then  our 
hopes  will  never  materialize."  1 

Moreover,  the  Socialism  of  Bernstein  —  for,  as  my 
opponent  triumphantly  reminds  me,  the  revisionist 
leader  remains  "an  active  and  militant  Socialist" 
does  not  differ  appreciably  from  the  programme  of  the 
advanced  social  reformer.  It  is  a  sort  of  denaturalized 
and  devitalized  Socialism,  as  may  be  seen  in  his  book, 
' '  Evolutionary  Socialism . ' ' 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  refutation  of  the  theory 
of  increasing  misery  is  well  worth  while. 

^'Protokoll  des  Stuttgarter  Parteitags,"  1898,  p.  128. 


CHAPTER  V 

SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY 

I.  SOCIALIST  MORALITY  is  IMMORAL 

BY  JOHN  A.   RYAN,   D.D. 

SOCIALIST  ethics  comprises  four  main  elements:  its 
general  principle,  and  its  specific  doctrines  concerning 
the  individual,  the  family,  and  the  State. 

According  to  the  general  principle,  the  rules  of  morality 
are  neither  eternal  nor  immutable.  Not  only  the  moral 
notions  and  conduct  of  men,  but  the  moral  laws  them- 
selves, are  temporary  and  variable.  In  other  words, 
the  moral  law  has  no  objective  existence  apart  from  the 
codes  of  conduct  that  .have  prevailed  among  nations  and 
classes  throughout  history. 

That  this  is  the  ordinary  Socialist  view  is  evident 
from  the  pages  of  both  the  classical  and  the  more  popu- 
lar writers  of  the  movement.  It  is  defended  by  Marx, 
Engels,  Dietzgen,  Bebel,  Kautsky,  Hillquit,  La  Monte, 
Herron,  Untermann,  Ladoff,  and  many  others. 

This  doctrine  of  ethical  relativity  rests  upon  two 
main  grounds  in  Socialist  theory ;  namely,  philosophical 
materialism  and  economic  determinism. 

Marx,  Engels,  Dietzgen,  and  most  of  the  other  great 
expounders  of  Socialism  conceived  all  reality  in  terms 
of  force  and  matter.  Their  materialism  was  not  merely 

us 


144  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

historico-economic,  but  metaphysical.1  For  them  there 
is  no  such  reality  as  God  or  spirit.  The  thoughts  and 
principles  in  the  mind's  of  men  are  merely  functions  or 
motions  of  the  brain.  All  things  are  in  constant  process 
of  change;  nay,  the  process  itself  is  the  only  reality. 
Consequently,  moral  rules  are  like  all  things  else,  tem- 
porary and  variable.  Murder,  lying,  theft,  rape, 
treachery,  and  disobedience  may  be  morally  good  at 
some  time  and  in  some  place. 

Individual  Socialists  who  are  better  than  their  philo- 
sophical creed  will,  of  course,  refuse  to  accept  this  con- 
clusion, but  they  will  do  so  at  the  expense  of  logic  and 
consistency. 

As  we  saw  in  Chapter  IV,  the  theory  of  economic  de- 
terminism traces  all  the  non-economic  institutions, 
beliefs,  and  processes  of  society,  such  as  the  family,  law, 
religion,  ethics,  and  education,  to  economic  conditions 
and  causes.  "The  mode  of  production  in  material  life," 
says  Marx,  "determines  the  social,  political,  and  spiritual 
processes  of  life."  2  To  quote  the  words  of  my  opponent, 
"the  manner  in  which  it  [a  nation]  produces  its  suste- 
nance ultimately  determines  its  form  of  organization, 
division  of  work  or  functions,  and  its  notions  of  right 
and  wrong  —  its  politics,  social  classes,  and  ethics." 

Evidently  men  who  believe  that  the  universe  is  com- 
posed only  of  matter  and  force,  that  all  things  are  in- 
cessantly changing  and  evolving,  and  that  economic 
forces  and  changes  govern  and  determine  moral  ideas, 

1  Cf.  "Feuerbach :  The  Roots  of  Socialist  Philosophy,"  by  F.  Engels; 
PP-  S3,  57,  59,  and  passim. 

*"A.  Contribution  to  the  Critique  of  Political  Economy,"  p.  n; 
New  York,  1904. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  145 

practices,  and  changes,  cannot  logically  admit  the  ex- 
istence of  an  invariable  and  universal  body  of  moral 
precepts  and  principles.  In  their  view  we  have  merely 
a  group  of  varying  moral  codes  which  develop  in,  and 
respond  to,  the  needs  of  different  classes,  nations,  and 
ages.  Moral  laws  are  merely  social  laws. 

According  to  this  view,  the  most  contradictory  codes 
and  practices  can  be  equally  true  and  good,  or  equally 
false  and  bad.  There  is  neither  a  uniform  standard  of 
moral  truth  nor  a  moral  law  in  the  traditional  sense. 
What  we  call  moral  laws  are  exactly  like  economic  laws ; 
that  is,  they  are  merely  statements  of  the  way  in  which 
different  classes  of  men  act  or  tend  to  act  in  a  given 
set  of  circumstances.  No  longer  is  the  moral  law  a 
categorical  imperative,  an  obligatory  rule  of  conduct, 
an  enactment  of  Divine  Reason.  Men  are  morally  free 
to  act  as  they  please,  and  to  set  up,. either  individually 
or  by  classes,  their  own  codes  of  conduct. 

This  theory  is  opposed  not  only  to  the  Christian  con- 
ception, but  to  the  convictions  of  every  person  who 
recognizes  God  as  the  Ruler  of  the  Universe.  Moral 
laws  are  unchangeable  because  they  are  based  ultimately 
upon  the  unchangeable  nature  of  God,  and  immediately 
upon  the  unchangeable  elements  of  human  nature.  In 
other  words,  they  are  the  rules  of  conduct  which  God 
necessarily  lays  down  for  the  guidance  of  beings  whom 
He  has  made  after  the  human  pattern,  just  as  physical 
laws  are  the  rules  by  which  He  directs  the  non-rational 
universe.  And  they  are  as  immutable  as  human  nature 
is  in  its  essentials  immutable. 

The  conception  of  an  eternal  and  unvarying  moral 
law  finds  expression  in  the  pages  of  innumerable  Chris- 


146  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

tian  writers  from  St.  Paul1  to  Hooker2  and  Cathrein.3 
Among  other  names  that  readily  suggest  themselves  are 
those  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  Francisco  Suarez,  and  Hugo 
Grotius.  The  doctrine  is  also  clearly  stated  in  the 
pages  of  such  pagan  writers  as  Plato,4  Sophocles,5 
and  Cicero.6 

The  primary  truths,  relations,  and  actions  which  this 
standard  of  conduct  describes  and  prescribes  have 
always  been  in  some  degree  understood  by  the  majority 
of  mankind.  While  the  natural  moral  law  is  correctly 
said  to  be  written  in  the  human  heart,  it  is  not  displayed 
in  flaming  head-lines.  Its  primary  and  most  essential 
provisions  are  intuitive  to  the  human  mind,  just  as  are 
the  elementary  propositions  of  mathematics.  Anything 
like  a  complete  comprehension  of  its  principles,  applica- 
tions, and  conclusions  can  be  attained  only  after  con- 
siderable study,  by  trained  intellects,  in  an  enlightened 
society. 

The  differences  which  have  existed  and  still  exist  in 
the  moral  notions  and  practices  of  various  peoples  and 
classes  prove  nothing  against  the  immutability  of  the 
law  itself.  Man's  conception  of  the  law  is  one  thing; 
the  law  itself  is  quite  another  thing.  Just  as  the  race 
varies  and  grows  in  its  comprehension  of  speculative  and 
physical  truths,  so  it  makes  progress  in  its  perception 
of  ethical  truths  and  principles.  Ethical  evolution  is 
undeniable ;  but  it  affects  man's  knowledge  of  the  law, 
not  the  structure  and  content  of  the  law.  That  indi- 
viduals and  nations  have  changed  their  moral  estimate 

1  Rom.  ii.  14,  15.  4 "The  Republic,"  iv. 

'"Ecclesiastical  Polity,"  I,  passim.          6  "Antigone,"  v,  446-460. 
*  "  Moralphilosophie."  •  "  Pro  Milone,"  iv,  10. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  147 

of  certain  practices  —  for  example,  slavery  —  no  more 
indicates  a  variation  in  the  objective  moral  law  than 
an  improved  knowledge  of  disease  and  its  treatment 
implies  a  change  in  the  fundamental  laws  of  hygiene. 
That  men  for  a  long  time  failed  to  perceive  or  recognize 
certain  moral  precepts,  does  not  demonstrate  the  non- 
existence  of  the  latter,  any  more  than  the  universal 
ignorance  of  the  heliocentric  theory  proves  that  the 
earth  first  began  to  travel  round  the  sun  in  the  days  of 
Copernicus. 

The  first  specific  doctrine  of  Socialist  ethics  is  that 
the  science  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  purely  self- 
regarding  actions  of  the  individual.  Ethics  deals  only 
with  man's  social  relations. 

If  purely  individual  conduct  is  outside  the  scope  of  the 
moral  law,  then  it  follows  with  absolute  logical  rigour 
that  the  rational  part  of  man  is  not  essentially  superior 
to  his  animal  nature,  that  soul  is  not  intrinsically  nobler 
than  sense,  that  man  has  no  more  duties  to  himself 
than  has  a  pig,  that,  so  long  as  he  does  not  injure  his 
neighbours,  he  is  morally  free  to  live  like  a  pig,  and  that 
his  personality  is  not  a  sacred  thing  which  he  is  morally 
obliged  to  develop,  and  which  his  fellows  are  under 
moral  compulsion  to  respect.  Lacking  moral  (as  dis- 
tinguished from  intellectual,  physical,  and  aesthetic) 
value,  the  human  individual  has  no  more  intrinsic  worth 
and  dignity  than  a  chimpanzee.  And  society  does  him 
no  moral  wrong  when  it  treats  him  accordingly. 

According  to  the  Christian  and  Theistic  conception, 
all  conduct,  whether  pertaining  to  self,  the  neighbour,  or 
God,  falls  within  the  sphere  of  the  moral  law.  When  a 


148  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

man  destroys  his  energies  and  shortens  his  life  by  dis- 
sipation, even  though  he  thus  injures  no  one  but  him- 
self, he  violates  the  moral  law  quite  as  definitely  as  when 
he  steals  or  kills.  To  tell  a  man  that  actions  of  the  former 
kind  are  devoid  of  ethical  quality,  is  to  assure  him  that 
he  has  no  genuine  obligation  to  avoid  them.  It  assures 
him  that  no  moral  stigma  attaches  to  the  most  degrad- 
ing acts  of  personal  impurity,  gluttony,  or  bestiality. 
Conduct  of  this  kind  becomes  as  free  from  moral  blame 
or  guilt  as  the  process  of  digestion.  Socialists  may  shrink 
from  this  ugly  conclusion,  but  only  by  throwing  logic 
overboard. 

If  only  those  actions  which  are  injurious  to  the  neigh- 
bour or  to  society  can  be  called  immoral,  all  unions  and 
relations  between  the  sexes  which  are  not  followed  by 
offspring  are  without  moral  aspects.  They  are  neither 
good  nor  bad.  In  such  cases,  says  Belford  Bax,  the 
sexual  act  "does  not  concern  morality  at  all.  It  is  a 
question  simply  of  individual  taste."  *  The  same  con- 
clusion is  drawn  by  Bebel:  "The  gratification  of  the 
sexual  impulse  is  as  strictly  the  personal  affair  of  the 
individual  as  the  gratification  of  every  other  natural 
instinct."  2 

Again,  the  theory  of  economic  determinism  logically 
requires  a  new  form  of  domestic  society  under  Socialism. 
If  the  methods  of  production  and  exchange  determine 
the  character  of  all  non-economic  institutions,  and  if 
the  present  monogamous  family  is  the  necessary  out- 
come of  the  present  economic  arrangements,  the  entirely 
different  economic  scheme  provided  under  Socialism  will 

1  "  Ethics  of  Socialism,"  p.  126. 

2  "Woman,"  p.  154;  San  Francisco,  1897. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  149 

necessarily  bring  with  it  a  different  kind  of  family.  All 
the  logical  and  courageous  Socialists  who  have  dealt 
with  the  subject  accept  this  conclusion. 

Engels  writes  thus:  "With  the  transformation  of  the 
means  of  production  into  collective  property,  the  monog- 
amous family  ceases  to  be  the  economic  unit  of  society. 
.  .  .  The  indissolubility  of  marriage  is  partly  the  con- 
sequence of  the  economic  conditions  under  which 
monogamy  arose,  partly  tradition  from  the  time  when 
the  connection  between  the  economic  situation  and 
monogamy,  not  yet  fully  understood,  was  carried  to 
extremes  by  religion.  To-day  it  has  been  perforated  a 
hundred  times.  If  marriage  founded  on  love  alone  is 
moral,  then  it  follows  that  marriage  is  moral  only  as  long 
as  love  lasts.  The  duration  of  an  attack  of  individual 
sex  love  varies  considerably  according  to  individual 
disposition,  especially  in  men.  A  positive  cessation 
of  sex  fondness,  or  its  replacement  by  a  new  passionate 
love,  makes  separation  a  blessing  for  both  parties  and 
society."  l 

In  the  preface  to  the  volume  from  which  these  ex- 
tracts are  taken,  Engels  intimates  that  his  view  of  the 
family  is  likewise  that  of  Marx. 

Forecasting  the  position  of  woman  under  Socialism, 
Bebel  declares :  — 

"In  the  choice  of  love  she  is  free,  just  as  man  is  free. 
She  wooes  and  is  wooed,  and  has  no  other  inducement 
to  bind  herself  than  her  own  free  will.  The  contract 
between  the  two  lovers  is  of  a  private  nature  as  in  primi- 
tive times,  without  the  intervention  of  any  functionary. 
.  .  .  Should  incompatibility,  disappointment,  and  dis- 
1  "The  Origin  of  the  Family,"  pp.  91,  99;  Chicago,  1902. 


150  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

like  ensue,  morality  demands  the  dissolution  of  a  tie 
that  has  become  unnatural,  and  therefore  immoral."  * 

The  foregoing  passages  were  written  about  thirty 
years  ago.  Kautsky,  the  ablest  and  most  authoritative 
living  Socialist,  gave  expression  to  the  following  senti- 
ments as  late  as  1906 :  — 

"The  same  phenomenon,  say,  of  free  sexual  inter- 
course or  of  indifference  to  property,  can  in  one  case  be 
the  product  of  moral  depravity  in  a  society  where  strict 
monogamy  and  the  sanctity  of  property  are  recognized 
as  necessary ;  in  another  case  it  can  be  the  highly  moral 
product  of  a  healthy  social  organism  which  requires  for 
its  social  needs  neither  property  in  a  particular  woman, 
nor  property  in  a  particular  means  of  consumption  and 
production."  2 

Similar  views  are  defended  by  Morris  and  Bax,3 
Edward  Carpenter,4  Ernest  Untermann,5  Charles  H. 
Kerr,6  and  many  others  among  the  lesser  lights  of  the 
Socialist  movement. 

These  pestiferous  notions  concerning  the  institution 
of  the  family  continue  to  be  widely  diffused  through 
Socialist  books,  Socialist  publishing  houses,  and  Socialist 
authorities  of  every  description;  nor  have  they  ever 
been  repudiated  by  any  significant  number  of  prominent 
Socialists.  In  these  circumstances  it  seems  not  unfair 

1  "Woman,"  p.  154. 

J"  Ethics  and  the  Materialist  Conception  of  History,"  pp.  193,  194; 
Chicago,  1913. 

3  "Growth  and  Outcome  of  Socialism,"  pp.   299,  300;   New  York, 
1893. 

4  "Love's  Coming  of  Age,"  p.  67 ;  New  York,  1911. 
8  Preface  to  "The  Origin  of  the  Family,"  p.  7. 

•  "The  Folly  of  Being  Good,"  p.  23. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  151 

to  say  that  marital  unions  dissoluble  at  the  will  of  the 
parties  is  the  approved  Socialist  doctrine. 

In  any  case,  the  views  in  question  are  so  generally 
circulated  and  accepted  within  the  movement  that  no 
intelligent  Catholic,  Protestant,  Jew,  or  other  believer 
in  the  traditional  marriage  is  justified  .in  giving  aid  or 
countenance  to  present-day  Socialism. 

As  a  natural  corollary  to  their  doctrine  of  "marriage 
for  love,"  Socialists  subscribe  more  or  less  generally  and 
definitely  to  the  theory  that  the  child  belongs  to  the 
State.  Hence  their  demand  for  State  monopoly  of  edu- 
cation. The  most  authoritative  of  all  the  Socialist 
platforms,  the  "Erfurter  Program,"  demands  "seculari- 
zation of  the  schools;  compulsory  education  in  the 
public  schools."  While  this  demand  was  addressed  to 
the  present  "capitalist"  State,  its  objects  would  un- 
doubtedly be  quite  as  warmly  desired  by  the  Socialists 
when  they  had  established  the  Collectivist  Common- 
wealth. Even  that  plausible  and  persuasive  com- 
promiser, John  Spargo,  is  of  opinion  that  the  Socialist 
regime  would  probably  not  tolerate  private  elementary 
schools,  nor  permit  religious  teaching  in  any  kind  of 
schools,  "up  to  a  certain  age."  * 

The  rearing  of  children,  especially  those  of  dissolved 
"love"  unions,  would  become  to  a  much  greater  extent 
than  to-day  the  business  of  the  State.  While  a  Socialist 
industrial  order  might  conceivably  require  all  parents  to 
provide  for  the  future  of  their  young  children  by  some 
kind  of  insurance,  the  current  thought  of  the  movement 
seems  to  contemplate  no  such  arrangement. 

1 "  Socialism,"  p.  238;  New  York,  1906. 


152  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Socialists  expect  that  their  proposed  reorganization  of 
society  will  bring  about  a  condition  of  general  happiness. 
This  is  the  ideal  that  they  desire  to  realize.  It  is  also, 
in  their  view,  the  guide  and  law  for  present-day  conduct. 
"All  factors  that  impede  the  path  to  its  approximate 
realization  are  anti-ethical  and  immoral;  contrariwise, 
all  factors  and  movements  which  tend  in  its  direction  are 
ethical."  l 

In  passing,  I  would  observe  that  this  statement  looks 
very  much  like  an  attempt  to  formulate  a  universal 
ethical  law.  The  task  of  reconciling  it  with  his  general 
denial  of  universality  to  moral  rules,  I  shall  leave  to  the 
ingenuity  of  my  opponent.  The  really  important  point 
about  this  rule  of  conduct  is  its  logical  soundness  from 
the  viewpoint  of  the  practical  aims  of  Socialism.  If  the 
Socialist  reconstruction  of  things  be  the  supreme  goal  of 
humanity,  all  existing  actions  ought  to  be  subordinated 
and  directed  to  the  furtherance  of  those  causes  and 
movements  which  make  for  the  Collectivist  Common- 
wealth. 

Hence  all  persons  except  the  capitalists  and  their 
allies  will  adopt  this  as  the  supreme  standard  of  conduct. 
"As  fast  as  they  become  class  conscious,  they  will 
recognize  and  praise  as  moral  all  conduct  that  tends  to 
hasten  the  social  revolution,  and  they  will  condemn  as 
unhesitatingly  immoral  all  conduct  that  tends  to  pro- 
long the  dominance  of  the  capitalist  class."  2 

Consider  this  gem  from  the  pen  of  the  usually  mild 
and  soft-spoken  John  Spargo :  — 

lHillquit,  "Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,"  pp.  59,  60. 
'La  Monte,  "Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,"  p.  64;    Chicago, 
1907. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  153 

"If  the  class  to  which  I  belong  could  be  set  free  from 
exploitation  by  violation  of  the  laws  made  by  the  master 
class,  by  open  rebellion,  by  seizing  the  property  of  the 
rich,  by  setting  the  torch  to  a  few  buildings,  or  by  sum- 
mary execution  of  a  few  members  of  the  possessing 
class,  I  hope  that  the  courage  to  share  in  the  work  should 
be  mine."  1 

To  promote  the  advent  of  the  Socialist  State  is,  there- 
fore, according  to  the  current  Socialist  view,  the  final 
end  of  conduct  and  the  ultimate  determinant  of  morality. 
All  actions  that  contribute  to  the  overthrow  of  Capital- 
ism and  the  establishment  of  collectivism  are  reasonable 
and  good.  The  grossest  deeds  of  violence  against  per- 
sons and  property,  the  crudest  confiscation  of  capitalist 
goods,  are  morally  justified  if  they  are  really  conducive 
to  this  end.  While  the  majority  of  Socialist  leaders 
apparently  condemn  the  destructive  methods  of  Syn- 
dicalism, they  are  not  actuated  by  moral  principles,  but 
by  considerations  of  expediency. 

I  do  not  recall  having  read  a  single  Socialist  condem- 
nation of  such  practices  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
morally  wrong. 

Against  this  restatement  of  the  ethics  of  savagery  the 
Christian  and  the  Theist  proclaim  the  everlasting  truth 
that  life  and  property  are  morally  inviolable.  Whatever 
economic  changes  are  necessary  (and  they  are  many  and 
various)  must  be  effected  by  orderly  processes  which 
will  respect  the  right  of  ownership  as  well  as  other  kinds 
of  rights. 

The  theory  that  social  welfare  is  the  determinant  of 
morality  would  be  fatal  to  the  rights  and  welfare  of  the 

1  "Syndicalism,  Industrial  Unionism,  and  Socialism,"  pp.  172,  173. 


154  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

individual.  At  no  given  time  is  the  well-being  of  the 
State  identical  with  the  well-being  of  all  its  members. 
Hence  the  Socialist  Commonwealth  might  quite  con- 
sistently and  expediently  kill  off  the  feeble-minded,  the 
physically  incurable,  and  all  persons  who  did  not  pro- 
duce their  keep. 

The  minority  would  have  no  rights  that  the  majority 
would  feel  morally  bound  to  respect. 

II.  IF  THIS  BE  IMMORALITY  — 

BY  MORRIS  HILLQUIT 

Socialists  generally  accept  the  definition  of  Ethics  as 
the  art  or  science  of  right  conduct  of  men  toward  their 
fellow-men.  This  conception  is  by  no  means  peculiar 
to  them.  Practically  all  authoritative  modern  writers 
agree  that  ethical  or  moral  conduct  must  have  a  social 
implication. 

In  this  view  the  highest  moral  conduct  on  the  part  of 
man  is  that  which  is  most  conducive  to  the  general 
happiness  and  welfare  of  the  community,  and,  con- 
versely, the  highest  moral  conduct  on  the  part  of  the 
community  is  such  as  is  most  conducive  to  the  happi- 
ness and  welfare  of  each  and  every  individual  member 
of  it.  There  is  nothing  new  or  startling  in  this  doctrine. 
It  is  merely  the  more  modern  and  scientific  formulation 
of  the  Golden  Rule  —  Do  unto  others  as  you  would  have 
them  do  unto  you. 

This  great  moral  ideal  has  never  been  generally 
attained  for  the  reason  that  the  existing  social  and  eco- 
nomic conditions  have  made  it  impossible  of  full  realiza- 
tion. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  155 

All  history  of  mankind  up  to  the  present  has  been 
tainted  with  national  and  class  struggles.  In  the  con- 
stant endeavour  to  secure  their  material  existence,  to 
enhance  their  wealth  and  resources,  and  to  increase  their 
domain,  the  nations  of  the  world  have  always  been  in  a 
state  of  intermittent  war  with  one  another.  The  ma- 
terial interests  which  prompted  this  strife  and  warfare 
were,  as  usual,  spontaneously  translated  into  ethical 
notions,  and  each  nation  accordingly  developed  a  dual 
standard  of  morality,  one  applicable  to  its  own  mem- 
bers, and  the  other,  diametrically  opposed  to  it,  to 
"hostile"  nations. 

Thus  while  every  civilized  nation  abhors  crimes  against 
the  person  or  property  of  its  own  members  and  brands 
them  as  revoltingly  immoral,  it  glorifies  murder,  pillage, 
and  many  unspeakable  crimes  if  committed  on  members 
of  other  nations  as  acts  of  warfare. 

And  just  as  the  material  needs  of  the  contending 
nations  determine  the  code  of  international  ethics,  so  do 
the  material  exigencies  of  each  nation  within  its  own 
domain  determine  its  national  code  of  ethics. 

Let  us  illustrate  that  theory  by  an  analysis  of  the 
prevailing  or  "capitalist"  morality. 

In  modern  society  each  individual  is  sent  out  into  the 
world  to  secure  his  existence,  not  in  cooperation,  but  in 
competition,  in  war  with  his  fellow-men.  The  prime 
task  of  "making  a  living"  naturally  and  necessarily 
degenerates  into  the  ambition  to  "make  money."  The 
amount  of  wealth  accumulated  by  the  individual  is  the 
generally  accepted  measure  of  his  "success  in  life." 
The  "pauper"  is  an  object  of  social  contempt,  and  the 
millionnaire  invariably  has  the  esteem  and  obsequious 


156  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

veneration  of  his  fellow-citizens,  who  rarely  stop  to  in- 
quire into  the  origin  or  social  significance  of  his  acquired 
wealth.  Practically  everything  is  permissible  and  even 
praiseworthy  so  long  as  it  makes  money. 

Thus  we  abhor  murder  in  all  its  forms  —  in  the 
abstract;  but  when  our  factory,  mine,  or  mill  owners 
daily  undermine  the  health  and  shorten  the  lives  of 
tender-aged  children  by  overwork  and  pestilential  sur- 
roundings, or  permit  the  killing  of  employees  by  prevent- 
able accidents,  in  the  ordinary  and  "legitimate"  course 
of  their  business,  we  are  not  inclined  to  attach  the 
slightest  moral  stigma  to  their  conduct. 

The  wretch  who  in  the  heat  of  passion  would  put 
poison  into  another  man's  food  is  despised  by  the  com- 
munity as  a  cowardly  assassin;  but  the  wealthy  manu- 
facturer or  dealer  who  systematically  adulterates  and 
poisons  foodstuffs  and  other  articles  intended  for  general 
consumption,  in  the  cold-blooded  pursuit  of  profits,  is  a 
perfectly  respectable  member  of  society. 

No  language  can  express  the  depth  of  the  loathing  and 
execration  with  which  we  regard  the  white-slave  trafficker 
who  lures  or  forces  women  into  lives  of  shame  for  paltry 
profits  to  himself;  but  the  department-store  owner, 
who  drives  hundreds  of  poor  struggling  girls  into  lives  of 
prostitution  by  low  pay,  as  a  mere  incident  in  his  process 
of  fortune  building,  is  often  of  the  material  of  which  are 
made  our  church  deacons  and  Sunday-school  superin- 
tendents. 

Socialists  are  not  inclined  to  place  the  blame  for  these 
perverse  capitalist  notions  of  ethics  on  the  individual 
"malefactors."  As  believers  in  the  economic  interpre- 
tation of  history  they  realize  that  ethical  notions  and  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  157 

conduct  of  individuals,  classes,  and  nations  are  primarily 
determined  by  material  conditions,  which  exist  inde- 
pendently of  the  personal  will  and  inclinations  of  man. 
Self-preservation  is  the  supreme  law  of  nature  for 
nations  as  well  as  individuals.  The  conditions  of  such 
preservation  depend  upon  the  material  surroundings, 
and  nothing  short  of  a  change  of  these  surroundings  can 
alter  human  habits  and  notions.  The  man-eating  cus- 
toms of  certain  savage  tribes  and  their  practice  of  killing 
their  feeble  and  aged  members  are  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  a  savage  predilection  for  murder,  but  to  scarcity  of 
food  among  them.  As  soon  as  such  tribes  develop  to  the 
point  of  increasing  their  food  supply  by  artificial  means, 
they  begin  to  realize  that  cannibalism  and  the  killing  of 
parents  are  immoral. 

Socialism  aims  to  establish  an  order  of  society  based 
on  cooperative  effort  and  collective  enjoyment  in  place 
of  the  present  individual  competitive  warfare.  The 
Socialists  also  maintain  that  all  modern  nations  are 
economically  self-sufficient  or  nearly  so;  that  inter- 
national wars  have  ceased  to  have  the  justification  of 
necessity,  and  are  now  conducted  mainly  in  behalf  of 
the  profit-seeking  capitalist  classes  —  for  the  conquest 
of  new  markets.  The  introduction  of  the  Socialist 
order  would  put  an  end  to  the  perennial  economic  and 
social  strife  between  individuals,  classes,  and  nations, 
and  would  for  the  first  time  in  history  create  an  economic 
order  in  which  the  welfare  of  each  individual  would  be 
truly  linked  with  that  of  all  of  his  fellows,  or  society  at 
large. 

The  reason  why  the  abstract  principles  of  Christian 
ethics  have  been  preached  for  well-nigh  two  thousand 


158  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

years  with  so  little  practical  success  is  just  that  they 
have  been  preached  in  the  abstract,  and  have  failed  to 
take  into  account  the  impelling  power  of  material  con- 
ditions and  needs.  Socialism  endeavours  to  lay  the  solid 
economic  foundation  upon  which  alone  the  sublime  moral 
doctrines  of  the  Nazarene  can  be  actually  realized. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Socialist  morality  may  thus 
be  said  to  be  truly  "Christian,"  my  distinguished  op- 
ponent rejects  it  in  every  part  and  phase. 

Modern  science  regards  the  development  of  the  moral 
sense  as  a  part  or  phase  of  the  general  process  of  human 
evolution.  As  the  advance  of  human  civilization  is 
signalized  by  ever  improving  methods  of  wealth  produc- 
tion, by  ever  increasing  efficiency  of  social  and  political 
organizations,  and  by  the  ever  growing  keenness  and  pro- 
fundity of  the  individual  human  mind,  so  is  it  accom- 
panied by  an  ever  rising  level  of  human  morality,  or 
sense  of  duty  of  man  toward  man. 

The  Socialists  accept  this  theory  as  modified  and  sup- 
plemented by  the  economic  interpretation  of  history. 
They  recognize  that  ethical  notions  are  subject  to 
changes  and  development,  but  they  hold  that  such  de- 
velopment is  primarily  determined  by  economic  condi- 
tions, i.e.  that  a  low  economic  order  will  result  in  poor 
ethics,  while  improved  economic  conditions  and  rela- 
tions are  conducive  to  better  morals. 

Dr.  Ryan  grows  morally  indignant  over  the  theory 
that  "the  rules  of  morality  are  neither  eternal  nor  im- 
mutable," and  that  "moral  rules  are  temporary  and 
variable."  According  to  his  notion,  this  theory  leads  to 
the  principle  that  "murder,  lying,  theft,  rape,  treachery, 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  159 

and  'disobedience'  may  be  morally  good  at  some  time 
and  in  some  place."  My  esteemed  opponent  seems  to 
confound  a  mere  objective  and  dispassionate  statement 
of  fact  with  a  declaration  of  a  principle  or  conviction. 
Evolutionists  in  general  and  Socialists  in  particular  do 
not  approve  of  the  horrid  string  of  crimes  enumerated 
by  Dr.  Ryan.  But  they  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to  the 
notorious  fact  that  these  crimes  have  been  considered 
moral  or  indifferent  "at  some  time  or  in  some  place" 
in  the  past,  and  that  they  are  still  so  considered  in  some 
forms  and  under  some  conditions. 

Dr.  Ryan's  own  view  of  the  nature  of  ethics  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  language :  — 

"Moral  laws  are  unchangeable  because  they  are  based 
ultimately  upon  the  unchangeable  nature  of  God,  and 
immediately  upon  the  unchangeable  elements  of  human 
nature.  In  other  words,  they  are  the  rules  of  conduct 
which  God  necessarily  lays  down  for  the  guidance  of 
beings  whom  He  has  made  after  the  human  pattern,  just 
as  physical  laws  are  the  rules  by  which  He  directs  the 
non-rational  universe." 

The  statement  is  emphatic,  but  unfortunately  it  is 
somewhat  lacking  in  meaning  and  can  hardly  be  squared 
with  the  known  facts  and  conditions. 

Dr.  Ryan  is  too  keen  a  thinker  to  ignore  the  dis- 
crepancy between  the  theory  of  "immutable"  rules  of 
ethics  and  the  history  of  constant  changes  in  the  moral 
conceptions  and  practices  of  men ;  and  in  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  the  contradiction  he  advances  a  very  subtle 
metaphysical  theory.  The  failure  on  the  part  of  men 
to  recognize  the  eternal  and  immutable  ethical  truth, 
he  argues,  does  not  prove  the  non-existence  of  such  truth 


160  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

"any  more  than  the  universal  ignorance  of  the  helio- 
centric theory  proves  that  the  earth  first  began  to  travel 
round  the  sun  in  the  days  of  Copernicus." 

The  comparison  is  not  very  happy.  The  immutable 
law  of  planetary  rotation  always  expressed  itself  in  the 
uniform  conduct  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  The  earth 
revolved  around  the  sun  at  all  times  and  under  all  con- 
ditions even  before  Copernicus  first  perceived  it,  but 
the  moral  notions  and  moral  conduct  of  men  always 
varied  in  spite  of  the  alleged  immutable  ethical  law,  i.e. 
rule  of  human  conduct. 

"Just  as  the  race  varies  and  grows  in  its  comprehen- 
sion of  speculative  and  physical  truth,  so  it  makes  prog- 
ress in  its  perception  of  ethical  truth  and  principles," 
concludes  Dr.  Ryan.  This  is  a  very  substantial  conces- 
sion on  his  part.  For  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  human 
race  gradually  improves  and  changes  its  notions  of  right 
and  wrong,  and  fashions  its  conduct  accordingly,  it 
matters  but  little  if  we  assume  for  our  amusement  or 
solace  that  at  the  same  time  there  always  exists  an 
abstract,  inactive,  and  ineffective  code  of  final  and  im- 
mutable ethics,  illegibly  written  somewhere  "in  the  hu- 
man heart."  The  changes  in  moral  notions  and  moral 
conduct,  which  are  thus  recognized  by  both  of  us,  con- 
stitute the  essence  of  "variable  ethics." 

Another  theory  which  provokes  my  opponent's  in- 
dignation is  that  morality  is  concerned  only  with  man's 
social  relations. 

"If  purely  individual  conduct  is  outside  of  the  moral 
law,"  he  exclaims,  "then  it  follows  with  absolute  logical 
rigour  that  the  rational  part  of  man  is  not  essentially  su- 
perior to  his  animal  nature,  that  soul  is  not  intrinsically 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  161 

nobler  than  sense,  that  man  has  no  more  duties  to  him- 
self than  has  a  pig." 

Dr.  Ryan  wastes  his  good  rhetoric  on  this  proposition. 
Without  assuming  to  pass  upon  the  respective  rank  or 
degree  of  nobility  of  man's  "rational  part"  and  his 
"animal  nature,"  his  "soul"  and  his  "sense,"  and  with- 
out attempting  to  defend  the  deplorably  low  state  of  the 
ethics  of  the  pig,  I  will  say  that  the  Socialists  do  not 
neglect  or  underestimate  the  spiritual  side  of  man's 
existence. 

Socialism  aims  at  the  highest  development  of  all  hu- 
man capacities,  physical,  mental,  spiritual,  aesthetic,  and 
moral.  But  the  mere  enumeration  and  differentiation 
of  these  attributes  shows  that  they  belong  to  distinct 
and  separate  domains.  The  physical  health,  intellectual 
attainments,  and  aesthetic  sense  of  the  human  being  are 
his  individual  attributes ;  his  moral  notions  and  con- 
duct pertain  to  his  social  relations.  We  strive  for  per- 
fection in  all  spheres  of  human  existence,  but  nothing 
can  be  gained,  save  confusion  in  thought  and  action,  by 
an  attempt  to  throw  them  all  within  the  one  sphere  of 
morality. 

The  second  half  of  Dr.  Ryan's  paper  is  devoted  very 
largely  to  the  criticism  of  the  Socialist  attitude  toward  the 
family.  Let  us  examine  his  objections  under  that  head. 

One  of  the  gravest  counts  in  the  Socialist  indictment 
of  the  prevailing  order  is  that  it  poisons  the  purity  and 
destroys  the  sanctity  of  family  life  among  all  classes  of 
society.  The  working-man's  "household"  is  in  a  vast 
number  of  cases  miserably  shattered  by  the  precarious 
condition  of  its  material  foundation.  When  the  man's 

M 


162  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

earnings  are  insufficient  for  the  support  of  the  family,  the 
wife  and  mother  is  inevitably  driven  from  her  "womanly  " 
functions  at  the  fireside  and  in  the  nursery  into  the  coarse 
atmosphere  and  exacting  toil  of  the  factory  room.  The 
"home"  degenerates  into  mere  night  lodgings  where  the 
mates  meet  for  short  intervals,  mostly  in  a  condition  of 
physical  exhaustion  and  in  a  gloomy,  irritable  mood. 

And  the  children  ?  They  grow  up  as  best  they  can  in 
the  streets  and  gutters  while  they  are  very  young, 
and  they  follow  their  parents  into  the  factory  —  the 
all-powerful  and  all-absorbing  temple  of  Capitalism  — 
before  they  are  strong  enough  for  continuous  physical 
work.  This  is  the  typical  working-man's  "home"  as  it 
exists  in  the  slums  and  tenement  districts  of  our  large 
and  numerous  industrial  centres  —  it  is  vastly  different 
from  the  sentimental  picture  habitually  drawn  by  the 
complacent  moral  philosopher. 

Among  the  "middle  classes,"  in  which  the  woman  as 
a  rule  does  not  work,  and  is  entirely  dependent  on  the 
man  for  her  material  needs,  being  married  is  her  sole 
gainful  occupation.  Marriage  is  at  least  as  often  a 
matter  of  business  as  it  is  a  matter  of  love,  and  the  poor 
feminine  victim  of  our  irrational  social  system  is  often 
tied  for  life  to  a  man  repulsive  and  disgusting  to  her, 
but  indispensable  as  a  provider  for  her  needs. 

Among  the  classes  of  the  wealthy,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  women  can  often  indulge  in  the  luxury  of  purchasing 
in  marriage  a  foreign  title  attached  to  a  dissipated  and 
dilapidated  specimen  of  mankind,  while  the  men  can 
afford  to  support  hosts  of  mistresses. 

Marriage  and  marital  cohabitation  thus  become 
unhappy  partnerships  in  economic  misery,  business 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  163 

arrangements,  purchases,  or  sales — anything  but  unions 
of  love.  Of  course,  there  are  still  very  numerous  cases 
of  marital  happiness  based  on  genuine  mutual  affection, 
but  such  true  unions  persist  in  spite  of  the  prevailing 
social  and  economic  conditions,  not  because  of  them. 

Socialism  will  vastly  raise  the  economic  level  of  the 
masses  and  will  put  an  end  to  the  material  dependence 
of  normal  adult  human  beings  on  others.  It  will  thus 
remove  all  sordid  mercenary  motives  from  marriage,  and 
will  naturally  leave  but  one  basis  of  marital  union  — 
mutual  love.  It  is  a  logical  corollary  of  the  proposition 
that  a  union  based  on  love  can  only  endure  so  long 
as  love  continues.  Most  Socialists  therefore  favour 
dissolubility  of  the  marriage  ties  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
contracting  parties. 

Dr.  Ryan  may  call  this  doctrine  "pestiferous,"  but  I 
hold  that  marital  cohabitation  without  love  is  positively 
immoral  and  quite  akin  to  prostitution.  He  maintains 
that  "the  theory  of  economic  determinism  logically  re- 
quires a  new  form  of  domestic  society  under  Socialism." 
It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  Socialism  would 
introduce  a  new  type  of  marital  relations  —  the  type  of 
actual  and  lasting  monogamy.  Just  because  under 
Socialism  marriage  will  be  based  on  true  love  rather  than 
economic  considerations,  the  chances  are  that  it  will 
endure  in  undimmed  and  lifelong  purity  in  a  much 
larger  number  of  cases  than  to-day. 

Nor  do  Dr.  Ryan's  fears  that  the  Socialist  state  would 
monopolize  the  rearing  and  education  of  the  children 
seem  to  me  at  all  well-founded.  A  Socialist  administra- 
tion would  certainly  provide  an  ample  number  of  ade- 


1 64  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

quate  and  efficient  public  schools  for  all  grades  and 
kinds  of  instruction,  and  would  retain  and  extend  the 
system  of  compulsory  education ;  but  there  is  absolutely 
no  warrant  in  the  Socialist  programme  or  philosophy  for 
the  assumption  that  the  government  would  withdraw 
the  education  of  children  from  the  control  and  super- 
vision of  the  parents,  or  interfere  with  any  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  latter  to  give  their  children  the  benefit  of 
supplemental  private  or  school  instruction  in  any  subject 
they  may  choose. 

Dr.  Ryan's  final  attack  is  aimed  at  what  he  conceives 
to  be  the  practical  code  of  Socialist  ethics.  He  main- 
tains that  in  the  Socialist  view  "  all  actions  which  further 
the  overthrow  of  Capitalism  .  .  .  are  reasonable  and 
good.  The  grossest  deeds  of  violence  against  persons 
and  property,  the  crudest  confiscation  of  capitalist  goods, 
are  morally  justified  if  they  are  really  conducive  to  this 
end." 

As  to  the  bugaboo  of  "confiscation,"  the  subject  has 
been  fully  disposed  of  in  the  third  chapter  of  this  book, 
and  as  to  "deeds  of  violence,"  it  is  sufficient  to  state 
that  the  International  Socialist  movement  is  clearly  and 
emphatically  committed  to  the  view  that  they  are  not 
"conducive  to  the  overthrow  of  Capitalism." 

Socialism  is  an  evolutionary  philosophy.  It  affirms 
that  great  social  changes  can  only  be  brought  about 
when  all  social  factors  required  for  the  change,  i.e. 
economic  conditions,  popular  opinion,  organization  of 
the  masses,  etc.,  have  fully  matured.  Violence  cannot 
hasten  the  process  of  social  development,  and  if  adopted 
as  a  method  of  the  Socialist  propaganda,  it  could  only 
result  in  confusion  and  demoralization  within  the  ranks 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  165 

of  the  active  Socialists,  and  in  strengthening  the  position 
of  their  opponents. 

Dr.  Ryan  quotes  my  good  friend  John  Spargo  as  pray- 
ing for  the  courage  to  do  sundry  violent  and  desperate 
things,  if  by  doing  so  he  could  bring  about  the  social 
salvation  of  the  working-class.  But  my  opponent  neg- 
lects to  inform  the  reader  that  the  blood-curdling  hypo- 
thetical prayer  of  the  "usually  mild  and  soft-spoken" 
Socialist  author  is  only  a  rhetorical  introduction  to  his 
very  emphatic  assertion  that  violence  cannot  accom- 
plish anything  good,  and  that  if  applied  by  the  working- 
class  it  would  only  leave  it  "more  hopelessly  enslaved 
than  ever"  and  would  "destroy  its  morale  as  a  fighting 
force."  In  fact,  Spargo's  entire  book  from  which  the 
disjointed  passage  is  quoted  was  written  in  defence  of 
lawful  methods  in  the  struggle  for  social  betterment. 

The  Socialist  movement  has  always  fought  the  anar- 
chists and  advocates  of  violence  within  the  labour  move- 
ment as  it  fights  the  more  numerous  and  dangerous 
anarchists  and  perpetrators  of  violence  within  the  ranks  of 
the  capitalist  class.  The  international  Socialist  conven- 
tions admit  no  organizations  whose  programmes  are  not 
based  on  the  peaceful  methods  of  working-class  politics, 
and  the  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States  has  formally 
adopted  a  rule  providing  for  the  expulsion  of  any  mem- 
ber who  may  advocate  violence  in  connection  with  the 
Socialist  propaganda. 

"But,"  says  my  opponent,  "these  actions  are  based 
on  mere  considerations  of  expediency  and  not  on  moral 
grounds."  To  this  I  can  only  answer  —  Blessed  is  the 
movement  whose  practical  notions  of  expediency  coincide 
so  well  with  the  abstract  precepts  of  the  highest  morality. 


1 66  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

m.  REJOINDER 

BY  DR.   RYAN 

In  his  reply  to  my  main  paper,  Mr.  Hillquit  admits 
substantially  that  I  have  stated  correctly  the  essentials 
of  Socialist  ethics.  Naturally  he  disagrees  with  me  con- 
cerning the  validity  and  value  of  those  ethical  doctrines. 
In  the  following  pages  I  shall  attempt  to  meet  some  of  his 
more  important  arguments,  and  to  bring  out  somewhat 
more  clearly  the  sinister  significance  of  the  moral  theories 
which  permeate  the  Socialist  movement. 

Applying  the  theory  of  economic  determinism  to  in- 
ternational relations,  my  opponent  asserts  that  material 
interests  have  led  the  nations  to  adopt  dual  and  "dia- 
metrically opposite"  standards  of  morality,  one  for 
themselves  and  another  for  the  peoples  without. 

Have  they?  Civilized  nations  forbid  the  killing  of 
their  own  citizens  except  on  account  of  capital  crimes. 
A  "diametrically  opposite"  rule  in  relation  to  foreigners 
would  permit  the  assassination  of  the  latter  in  the 
absence  of  any  such  offences.  Will  my  opponent  cite  a 
single  civilized  people  that  has  explicitly  adopted  or 
defended  this  principle? 

Nor  have  the  civilized  peoples  sanctioned  this  prin- 
ciple implicitly.  Waging  war  on  foreign  nations  no  more 
implies  approval  of  murder  than  does  the  legal  execution 
of  criminals,  or  individual  homicide.  In  every  war  one 
of  the  belligerents  is  necessarily  contending  for  ad- 
vantages to  which  it  has  no  moral  right,  and  is  there- 
fore in  the  position  of  an  unjust  aggressor.  Sometimes 
the  wrongful  nation  realizes  the  immorality  of  its  course, 


SOCIALISM  AND   MORALITY  167 

just  as  the  individual  murderer  sometimes  recognizes 
the  wickedness  of  his  action.  Perhaps  in  the  majority 
of  cases  the  offending  nation  thinks  that  it  has  a  proper 
grievance,  that  it  is  merely  defending  its  genuine  rights. 
Its  mistaken  interpretation  of  the  moral  law  no  more 
involves  approval  of  the  principle  of  murder  than  does 
the  homicidal  performance  of  a  lynching  party  or  a 
Kentucky  feudist. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  nation  that  is  in  the  right 
defends  its  position  by  force  of  arms  on  quite  the  same 
solid  moral  ground  as  it  puts  to  death  capital  offenders 
among  its  own  citizens,  and  with  quite  the  same  justifi- 
cation as  that  which  authorizes  the  individual  to  protect 
his  own  life  against  the  murderous  attack  of  a  highway- 
man. 

Perhaps  the  simplest  and  clearest  indication  that  war 
does  not  imply  approval  of  murder,  is  the  fact  that 
civilized  belligerents  refrain,  even  to  their  own  disad- 
vantage, from  killing  women  and  other  non-combatants. 

In  the  field  of  industrial  relations,  continues  my 
opponent,  we  likewise  see  the  all-determining  influence 
of  material  interests  upon  moral  conceptions.  By  the 
rules  of  the  "prevailing  capitalist  morality,"  "prac- 
tically everything  is  permissible  and  praiseworthy  so 
long  as  it  makes  money." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  current  moral  conceptions 
condemn  all  the  industrial  evils  enumerated  in  Mr. 
Hillquit's  lurid  paragraphs.  In  proof  of  this  statement 
I  would  call  attention  to  the  mass  of  corrective  legisla- 
tion already  enacted,  and  certain  to  be  enacted.  Not 
even  the  capitalist  class  has  ever  formally  accepted  the 
principle  that  practically  everything  is  lawful  which 


1 68  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

"makes  money."  If  they  frequently  act  in  such  a  way 
as  to  suggest  to  the  uncritical  that  they  believe  in  this 
principle,  they  are  influenced  by  several  other  considera- 
tions than  crude  and  simple  greed. 

One  cause  of  such  conduct  has  been  the  prevalence  of 
the  plausible  but  fundamentally  false  ethical  theory  pro- 
pounded with  more  or  less  definiteness  by  the  classical 
economists,  that  every  free  contract  is  a  fair  contract. 
Another  is  the  failure  of  many  employers  to  realize  the 
existence  or  the  extent  of  the  industrial  evils  in  question. 
Moreover,  a  large  class  of  employers  either  lull  to  sleep 
or  deliberately  violate  their  better  moral  perceptions. 
Another  large  group,  possibly  the  majority,  are  unable, 
on  account  of  the  keenness  of  business  competition,  to 
remedy  the  bad  conditions.  Finally,  employers  as  a 
whole  realize  both  the  evils  and  their  own  responsibility 
much  more  fully  than  they  did  half  a  century  ago. 

As  I  have  more  than  once  observed  in  the  course  of  this 
debate,  the  economic  interests  and  conditions  of  individ- 
uals and  of  classes  do  prevent  them  from  estimating 
fairly  and  accurately  the  morality  of  many  kinds  of  con- 
duct. But  this  is  quite  a  different  statement  from  the 
assertion  that  moral  notions  and  practices  are  primarily 
determined,  caused  to  be  what  they  are  by  material 
conditions  and  interests.  So  long  as  men  admit  that 
they  are  obliged  sometimes  to  subordinate  their  own  in- 
terests to  the  welfare  of  their  fellows  or  to  moral  principle, 
they  show  conclusively  that  material  conditions  are  not 
the  supreme  determinant  of  ethical  beliefs  and  conduct. 

In  passing,  I  would  note  that  according  to  Socialist 
theory  moral  ideas  and  actions  are  determined  by  mate- 
rial conditions  not  only  primarily,  but  necessarily.  "  So- 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  169 

cialists,"  declares  my  opponent,  "are  not  inclined  to 
place  the  blame  for  these  perverse  capitalist  notions  of 
ethics  upon  the  individual  'malefactors.'"  Hence  the 
moral  beliefs  and  deeds  of  men  are  beyond  the  control 
of  the  human  will.  Hence  the  labour-crushing  capitalist, 
no  less  than  the  bomb-throwing  exemplar  of  sabotage, 
is  relieved  of  all  strictly  moral  accountability.  Both 
are  helpless  instruments  of  material  forces  ! 

I  did  not  say,  nor  even  intimate,  that  any  Socialist 
"approves  of  the  horrid  string  of  crimes"  which  I  enu- 
merated in  the  fourth  paragraph  of  my  principal  paper. 
What  I  said  was  that  the  Marxian  who  is  logical  must 
admit  the  possibility  that  all  these  may  sometime  be- 
come legitimate ;  but  I  did  not  venture  the  assertion  that 
all  Socialists  are  logical. 

In  the  opinion  of  my  opponent,  the  ethical  standard 
which  I  have  defended  is  "  somewhat  lacking  in  meaning." 
It  is,  indeed,  somewhat  abstract  and  technical,  but  so 
are  all  summary  statements  of  fundamental  truth.  And 
yet  it  is  more  concrete  and  practical  than  his  standard 
of  general  happiness.  When  we  say  that  man's  rational 
nature  is  the  unvarying  rule  of  conduct,  we  mean : 
first,  that  he  must  not  use  his  faculties  in  such  a  way  as 
to  frustrate  their  natural  end,  or  the  natural  end  of  his 
entire  being ;  second,  that  his  animal  or  sense  nature 
must  be  subordinated  to  his  rational  or  spirit  nature; 
third,  that  by  nature  all  men  are  essentially  equal,  and 
have  substantially  equal  claims  upon  one  another; 
fourth,  that  they  are  inferior  and  owe  unqualified  obedi- 
ence to  God ;  and,  fifth,  that  they  are  essentially  superior 
to  the  brute  creation. 


170  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

In  his  endeavour  to  establish  the  variableness  of  the 
moral  law,  my  opponent  rejects  the  distinction  which  I 
drew  between  the  law  and  the  understanding  of  it  by 
human  beings.  This  distinction  he  calls  "a  subtle  meta- 
physical theory."  It  is  neither  subtle  nor  metaphysical, 
but  obvious  and  logical.  Quite  as  aptly  might  he  apply 
this  phrase  to  the  effort  to  distinguish  between  a  civil 
law  and  the  varying  popular  knowledge  of  it,  or  between 
the  established  principles  of  medical  science  and  the 
various  conceptions  of  them  prevailing  throughout  a 
community. 

The  immutable  law  of  planetary  rotation,  continues 
Mr.  Hillquit,  always  expressed  itself  in  the  uniform 
"conduct"  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  but  the  moral  notions 
and  conduct  of  men  varied  in  spite  of  the  "alleged  immut- 
able laws." 

But  the  moral  law  likewise  expressed  itself  at  all  times. 
Its  provisions  could  be  read  in  man's  nature  and  in  his 
essential  relations  to  other  beings.  And  the  majority 
of  mankind  did  perceive  this  objective  expression,  this 
enduring  record,  of  the  moral  law  long  before  any  of  them 
discovered  the  law  of  planetary  rotation. 

If  we  admit  that  the  race  makes  moral  progress,  con- 
tends my  opponent,  it  matters  little  whether  we  believe 
in  the  objective  existence  of  a  code  of  "final  and  im- 
mutable ethics."  But  how  can  we  know  whether  the 
changes  in  moral  notions  and  actions  to  which  we  give  the 
name  of  progress  are  properly  so  called,  unless  we  have 
some  permanently  valid  code  of  ethics,  some  supreme 
standard,  some  moral  ideal,  by  which  we  can  distinguish 
the  good  from  the  bad  in  conduct,  and  the  genuine  from 
the  imitation  in  moral  progress  ?  Precisely  because  men 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  171 

have  possessed  the  conception  of  such  a  standard,  how- 
ever denned,  they  have  been  able  to  discern  and  to  follow, 
however  dimly  and  haltingly,  the  way  of  improvement. 

Nor  can  my  opponent  save  the  situation  by  bringing 
in  his  standard  of  general  welfare  or  general  happiness. 
If  there  be  no  such  thing  as  objective  and  immutable 
ethical  rules,  on  what  rational  ground  can  the  individual 
be  required  to  subordinate  his  own  welfare  or  pleasure 
to  that  of  the  community?  Why  should  this  standard 
suddenly  become  morally  binding  upon  its  adoption  by 
the  Socialist  State  ?  It  is  quite  in  order  for  the  individual 
to  remonstrate :  — 

"On  your  own  principle  your  ethical  code  is  funda- 
mentally relative ;  for  it  is  but  the  expression  of  what 
you  conceive  to  be  the  needs  of  your  present  form  of 
society.  It  has  no  more  genuine  moral  force,  authority, 
or  obligation  than  any  other  code  that  has  ever  been  set 
up  by  any  other  society  or  social  class.  I  claim  the  right 
to  make  my  own  ethics." 

To  this  objection  the  only  possible  reply  of  the  Socialist 
State  would  be  the  enforcement  of  the  argument  of 
superior  brute  force.  Might  and  right  would  have  be- 
come identical. 

My  opponent  declines  to  commit  himself  to  the  view 
that  the  rational  is  nobler  than  the  animal  element  in 
man,  or  that  soul  is  intrinsically  superior  to  sense ;  yet 
he  asserts  that  Socialists  do  not  underestimate  the 
spiritual  side  of  man,  and  that  they  strive  for  perfection 
in  all  spheres  of  human  existence. 

By  the  very  fact  that  he  refuses  to  recognize  the  in- 
trinsic superiority  of  the  rational  over  the  sense  facul- 


172  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ties,  he  does  underestimate  the  spiritual  element.  By 
putting  the  rational  or  spiritual  on  the  same  level  of 
importance  with  the  physical  nature,  he  declares  im- 
plicitly that  to  exercise  the  latter,  to  indulge  the 
physical  appetites,  in  those  purely  individual  acts  of 
dissipation  and  sensuality  which  atrophy  the  intellect 
and  brutalize  the  will,  constitutes  conduct  that  is 
quite  as  laudable  and  reasonable  as  the  loftiest  ac- 
tivity of  the  intellect  or  the  firmest  control  of  the 
passions.  Since  there  is  no  difference  of  moral  impor- 
tance or  worth  between  the  two  sets  of  faculties,  each  man 
enjoys  full  liberty,  moral  as  well  as  physical  and  psycho- 
logical, to  choose  for  himself  which  faculties  he  shall  exer- 
cise most,  to  choose  whether  he  shall  live  like  a  man  or 
like  a  brute;  and  no  moral  stigma  can  attach  to  one 
choice  more  than  to  the  other. 

If  individual  conduct  be  outside  the  moral  law,  then 
no  man  has  any  moral  obligation  toward  himself ;  hence 
his  "striving  for  perfection"  is  not  a  moral  obligation, 
but  an  entirely  optional  performance.  It  is  no  more 
good,  reasonable,  or  laudable  than  the  practice  of  the 
most  degrading  personal  debauchery. 

Mr.  Hillquit  admits  that  the  monogamous  family, 
understood  as  a  permanent  union,  would  and  should 
disappear  under  Socialism.  For  he  advocates,  not 
indeed  sexual  promiscuity,  but  unions  dissoluble  at  the 
will  of  the  parties  themselves.  By  removing  all  mer- 
cenary motives  from  marriage,  he  will  leave  but  one  basis 
of  conjugal  union  —  mutual  love.  To  quote  his  own 
words  :  "A  union  based  on  love  can  endure  only  so  long 
as  love  continues.  In  other  words,  most  Socialists, 


SOCIALISM   AND   MORALITY  173 

in  common  with  most  sensible  and  enlightened  persons, 
favour  dissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  contracting  parties." 

But,  contends  my  opponent,  these  "love"  unions  would 
"endure  in  undimmed  and  lifelong  purity  in  a  much 
larger  number  of  cases  than  to-day." 

While  an  extended  reply  to  this  assertion  is  impossible 
for  want  of  space  and  unnecessary  because  my  main 
purpose  has  been  merely  to  bring  out  the  real  attitude 
of  Socialists  on  the  question  of  monogamy,  a  few  sum- 
maries of  controverting  arguments  may  not  be  out  of 
place. 

a.  The  theory  before  us  assumes  that  under  Socialism 
the  actual  opportunity  of  making  their  own  living  would 
be  open  to  all  women  as  an  easy  alternative  to  marriage. 
This  implies  a  vast  increase  in  the  proportion  of  women 
in  industrial  occupations.     Such  a  situation  is  neither 
morally  nor   socially  desirable.     Probably  nine-tenths 
of  the  women  who  are  now  engaged  in  manufacture,  and 
a  large  proportion  of  those  in  trade  and  transportation, 
are  performing  tasks  which  are  physically  and  morally 
detrimental  to  themselves,  and  therefore  to  the  race. 
It  is  not  possible  that  Socialism  or  any  other  scheme 
would  change  essentially  the  nature  or  effects  of  these 
industrial  operations. 

b.  The  assumption  that  it  is  somehow  degrading  for 
a  woman  to  depend  upon  a  man  for  a  livelihood,  or  to 
allow  material  considerations  to  influence  her  choice  of  a 
husband  is  cheap  and  shallow.     It  is  adopted  mainly 
by  those  who  are  enmeshed  in  a  superficial  a  priori  social 
philosophy,  and  by  that  blatant  and  shameless  little 
clique  of  creatures  who  think  they  are  "advanced  femin- 


174  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ists,"  and  who  would  like  to  make  women  over  into  a 
bad  imitation  of  men.  In  the  light  of  nature  and 
common  sense,  it  is  no  more  unbecoming  for  a  woman  to 
depend  upon  a  man  for  her  livelihood  than  for  a  man 
to  depend  upon  a  woman  for  his  meals,  the  care  of  the 
household,  or  the  bearing  and  nursing  of  children. 

c.  Even  under  Socialism,  many  women  would  still 
find  that  they  could  better  their  condition  by  marrying 
a  higher-paid  man.     And  large  numbers  of  them  would 
have  sense  enough  left  to  see  that  marriage  is  natural, 
while  most  industrial  employments  are  to  them  un- 
natural and  harmful,  and  that  marriage  even  on  a  lower 
economic  level  is  on  the  whole  preferable  to  "economic 
independence."    To  assume  that  these  two  classes  of 
women  would  not  marry  until  they  were  certain  that 
love  was  the  only  determining  motive,  is  to  betray  a 
lofty  indifference  to  some  of  the  most  palpable  facts  of 
human  nature  and  human  life. 

d.  Has  my  opponent  any  data  to  show  that  divorce 
is  less  common  among  love  marriages  than  among  those 
that   have   taken   into   account   other   considerations? 
Is  romantic  love  the  only,  or  the  most  powerful,  factor 
in  the  permanence  of  conjugal  unions  ? 

e.  Moreover,  when  men  and  women  realize  that  their 
unions  are  terminable  at  will,  they  will  be  much  more 
likely  than  now  to  mistake  passion  and  infatuation  for 
love,  both  before  and  after  marriage,  and  much  more 
liable  to  neglect  such  considerations  as  mind,  character, 
and  consequences. 

My  opponent  assures  me  that  Socialism  would  not 
withdraw  the  education  of  children  from  the  control 
and  supervision  of  the  parents,  nor  prevent  the  latter 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  175 

from  giving  their  children  the  benefit  of  "supplemental 
private  or  school  instruction  in  any  subject  they  may 
choose." 

Thus  the  only  instruction  to  be  permitted  outside  the 
public  schools  will  be  merely  " supplemental."  Although 
this  "supplemental"  training  may  be  given  in  a  private 
school  as  well  as  at  home,  the  child  will  be  compelled 
to  attend  the  public  school  regularly,  and  to  follow  all 
the  courses  taught  therein.  No  parent  will  be  allowed 
to  educate  his  child  wholly  or  mainly  outside  the  public 
school.  What  is  this  if  it  be  not  monopoly  of  educa- 
tion? 

I  never  denied  that  Mr.  Spargo  and  the  International 
Socialist  movement  condemned  deeds  of  violence.  I 
merely  maintained  that  their  condemnation  was  based 
not  upon  moral  grounds,  but  upon  mere  expediency. 
I  asserted  that  no  authoritative  Socialist  denounces  such 
practices  as  morally  wrong.  And  my  opponent  admits 
the  correctness  of  these  contentions  when  he  "can  only 
answer :  Blessed  is  the  movement  whose  practical  no- 
tions of  expediency  coincide  so  well  with  the  abstract 
precepts  of  the  highest  morality." 

If  this  be  not  an  implicit  assertion  that  violence  is 
morally  lawful  whenever  it  is  expedient  for  Socialism, 
and  a  virtual  confession  that  my  interpretation  of  Social- 
ist thought  on  the  subject  is  accurate,  I  am  forced  to  the 
conclusion  that  my  opponent  is  using  language  in  a 
purely  esoteric  sense,  of  which  he  refuses  to  give  up  the 
key. 

How  exactly  the  Socialist  notions  of  expediency  "coin- 
cide" with  abstract  moral  precepts,  is  beautifully  illus- 


1 76  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

trated  In  the  recent  history  of  the  I.  W.  W.  faction  of 
American  Socialism.  "The  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World"  accept  the  principle  of  expediency,  but  not  the 
practical  application  of  it  offered  by  the  majority  of  the 
party.  Believing  that  "deeds  of  violence"  are  expedient 
in  the  war  with  Capitalism,  they  proceed  to  demolish, 
if  possible,  the  "abstract  precepts  of  the  highest  moral- 
ity." Worse  than  all,  they  demonstrate  that  expediency 
is  not  expedient,  since  their  interpretation  of  it  has  split 
the  American  Socialist  party  in  twain.  A  similar  situa- 
tion obtains  in  the  European  movement. 

What  else  could  any  thinking  person  expect  ?  Preach 
the  theory  that  a  practice  derives  all  its  morality  from 
expediency,  and  you  open  the  way  for  the  most  reckless 
use,  or  abuse,  of  it  by  all  those  persons  who  will  not  ac- 
cept you  as  its  infallible  interpreter. 


IV.  SURREJOINDER 

BY  MR.   HILLQUIT 

Dr.  Ryan's  rebuttal  is  largely  an  effort  to  fortify  his 
arguments  in  support  of  his  two  main  ethical  precepts, 
the  final  and  immutable  character  of  the  moral  law 
and  the  indissolubility  of  marriage. 

In  my  main  paper  I  asserted  that  the  moral  notions 
and  practices  of  individuals,  classes,  and  nations  are 
subject  to  variations  and  changes,  and  that  the  nature 
of  such  variations  and  the  direction  of  such  changes 
are  largely  determined  by  material  needs  and  advantages. 
In  support  of  this  contention  I  instanced  the  callousness 
of  capitalist  morality  as  applied  to  industrial  pursuits 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  177 

and  the  perverse  moral  notions  which  sanction  interna- 
tional wars. 

Dr.  Ryan's  reply  to  this  contention  may  be  fairly 
summed  up  in  three  points :  — 

1.  The  killing  of  human  beings,  in  war  or  in  peace, 
is  not  always  morally  wrong.     The  nation  "  that  is  in  the 
right"  is  justified  on  "solid  moral  grounds"  in  defending 
such  right  by  "force  of  arms,"  and  the  community  has 
a  similar  moral  right  to  the  "legal  execution"  of  the 
"criminal"  or  "capital  offender." 

2.  "Perhaps  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  offending 
nation  thinks  that  it  has  a  proper  grievance,"  and  simi- 
larly, the  offending  capitalist  often  fails  to  realize  the 
social  iniquities  of  the  prevailing  industrial  system. 

3.  "Sometimes  the  wrongful  nation  realizes  the  im- 
morality of  its  course,"  but  fails  to  admit  it,  just  as  a 
large  class  of  the  employers  realize  the  moral  depravity 
of  their  practices,  but  either  "lull  to  sleep  or  deliberately 
violate  their  better  moral  perceptions." 

Let  us  examine  these  arguments. 

Dr.  Ryan  justifies  the  killing  of  "aggressors,"  "capital 
offenders,"  and  "criminals,"  wholesalely  in  war  or  in 
retail  "by  legal  process."  But  what  is  an  "aggression" 
or  "offence,"  and  what  is  "innocence"  or  "defence," 
and  how  and  by  whom  are  they  to  be  differentiated  ? 

In  the  eyes  of  the  average  Englishman,  the  American 
colonists  were  decidedly  hardened  offenders  when  they 
seditiously  refused  to  pay  lawful  taxes  regularly  imposed 
on  them  by  parliament,  while  the  colonists  vowed  that 
England  was  the  aggressor  and  offender  in  attempting 
such  taxation.  To  the  mediaeval  Catholic  governments 
the  "heretic"  was  a  capital  offender,  and  even  the  in- 

N 


178  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

fallible  Catholic  Church  with  its  immutable  notions  of 
the  moral  law  condoned  that  conception.  Autocratic 
governments  consider  every  active  republican  a  "capital 
offender,"  and  in  return  every  republic  considers  it  a 
crime  to  strive  for  the  establishment  of  a  monarchy. 
To  the  anarchist  every  capitalist  is  an  offender ;  to  the 
typical  capitalist  every  "agitator"  and  labour  leader  is 
a  criminal. 

All  these  different  and  opposite  elements  would  cheer- 
fully subscribe  to  Dr.  Ryan's  doctrine.  What  a  picture 
of  "eternal,  invariable,  and  immutable  ethics"  ! 

But  even  less  convincing  than  my  opponent's  moral 
justification  of  some  wars  and  of  all  "legal  executions" 
is  his  touching  picture  of  the  nation  going  to  war  in  a 
sad  and  sombre  mood  arising  from  the  consciousness  of 
its  own  guilt,  and  of  the  capitalist  realizing  the  unright- 
eousness of  his  course.  In  actual  experience  such  con- 
scious and  shame-faced  offenders  are  rare.  As  a  rule 
the  belligerent  nations  are  equally  emphatic  in  their 
moral  indignation  against  each  other  and  equally  loud 
in  the  patriotic  protestations  of  their  own  offended  inno- 
cence, while  the  churches  of  both  countries  send  conflict- 
ing and  bewildering  prayers  to  the  Almighty  for  the 
victory  of  their  respective  just  causes. 

As  to  the  typical  capitalists,  they  are  usually  in  full 
accord  with  the  position  of  that  candid  and  pious  Ameri- 
can representative  of  their  class  who  recently  consoled 
his  countrymen  with  the  assurance  that  the  Lord  has 
ceded  the  treasures  of  the  earth  to  certain  "Christian 
gentlemen,"  who  knew  how  to  operate  and  capitalize 
them. 

Dr.  Ryan  comes  very  much  nearer  the  truth  when  he 


SOCIALISM  AND   MORALITY  179 

asserts  that  the  offending  nations  and  classes  often  fail 
to  realize  their  wrongdoings.  But  perhaps  this  state- 
ment seems  so  convincing  to  me  only  because  I  have 
been  contending  for  it  all  through  this  debate. 

Dr.  Ryan's  final  argument  in  support  of  his  theory  of 
immutability  of  the  moral  law,  is  that  without  such  a 
standard  moral  progress  would  be  impossible  or,  at  any 
rate,  unmeasurable.  "How  can  we  know,"  he  queries, 
"whether  the  changes  in  moral  notions  and  actions  to 
which  we  give  the  name  of  progress  are  properly  so 
called,  unless  we  have  some  permanently  valid  code  of 
ethics?" 

My  opponent  here  seems  to  confound  two  entirely 
different  ideas  —  Final  Ethics  and  the  Ethical  Ideal. 
When  he  speaks  of  Final  Ethics  he  has  in  mind  a  uniform 
unchanged  and  unchangeable  code  of  morals,  which  was 
in  existence  at  the  first  appearance  of  man  and  will  re- 
main in  full  force  until  the  end  of  the  world.  An  Ethical 
Ideal  on  the  other  hand  means  nothing  more  than  the 
highest  conception  of  morality  to  which  the  human  mind 
can  attain  at  a  given  stage  of  social  and  intellectual  de- 
velopment. There  is  nothing  permanent  about  it.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  its  elasticity  that  constitutes  its 
greatest  worth.  Such  an  ideal  always  represents  a  vast 
advance  over  the  cruder  ideals  of  the  less  civilized  past, 
and  it  falls  short  of  the  higher  ideals  which  a  better  future 
will  undoubtedly  develop. 

Another  logical  somersault  my  opponent  performs  in 
drawing  his  deductions  from  my  views  on  the  compara- 
tive importance  of  the  various  human  capacities.  Be- 
cause I  refuse  to  admit  "the  intrinsic  superiority  of  the 


l8o  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

rational  over  the  sense  faculties,"  he  concludes  that  I 
consider  it  "quite  as  laudable  and  reasonable"  to  in- 
dulge "in  those  purely  individual  acts  of  dissipation  and 
sensuality  which  atrophy  the  intellect  and  brutalize 
the  will"  as  in  "the  lofty  activity  of  the  intellect." 

In  other  words,  he  asserts  that  the  person  who  holds 
the  physical  and  intellectual  functions  of  man  in  equal 
esteem  must  approve  of  the  grossest  abuses  of  the 
former  just  as  much  as  of  the  most  proper  and  normal 
uses  of  the  latter. 

In  my  main  paper  on  this  subject  I  stated  that  most 
Socialists  favour  the  dissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  contracting  parties.  My  opponent 
construes  this  statement  as  an  "admission"  on  my  part 
"that  the  monogamous  family,  understood  as  a  permanent 
union,  would  and  should  disappear  under  Socialism." 
By  a  skilful  blending  of  the  terms  "permanent  union," 
"indissoluble  marriage,"  and  "monogamy"  he  contrives 
to  convey  the  impression  that  Socialism  is  opposed  to  the 
institution  of  monogamous  marriage.  There  is  abso- 
lutely no  foundation  for  such  an  assertion. 

A  monogamous  family  is  one  formed  by  the  union  of 
one  woman  with  one  man.  If  in  such  union  one  of  the 
mates  dies  and  the  survivor  marries  another  spouse,  the 
union  continues  to  be  monogamous,  and  if  the  partners 
divorce  and  each  remarries,  the  resulting  unions  are  still 
strictly  monogamous.  Conversely,  if  we  should  assume 
that  the  Mormon  Church  or  some  Islam  government 
should  sanction  simultaneous  unions  between  one  man 
and  several  women  and  make  such  unions  absolutely 
indissoluble,  the  latter  would  be  polygamous  and  not 


SOCIALISM  AND   MORALITY  181 

monogamous.  .„  Socialists  stand  for  strict  monogamy 
coupled  with  the  right  of  divorce,  a  right  which  is  recog- 
nized in  all  civilized  countries.  But  while  the  privilege 
of  divorce  is  to-day  accorded  only  for  certain  gross  con- 
jugal or  personal  misconduct,  Socialists  would  extend  that 
privilege  to  all  persons  whose  marital  life  has  been  ren- 
dered loveless,  joyless,  and  miserable  for  any  reason 
whatsoever. 

"Has  my  opponent  any  data  to  show  that  divorce  is 
less  common  among  love  marriages  than  among  those 
that  have  taken  into  account  other  considerations?" 
queries  Dr.  Ryan. 

Of  course  I  have  not.  The  scanty  marital  statistics 
which  the  census  furnishe.s  us  are  unfortunately  not 
based  on  love  marriages  alone,  but  on  all  present-day 
marriages,  and  these  have  largely  been  contracted  for 
"other  considerations."  But  just  for  that  reason  the 
available  figures  are  rather  interesting  and  by  no  means 
irrelevant  to  Dr.  Ryan's  question.  Here  they  are : 
The  total  number  of  divorces  granted  in  the  United 
States  between  1887  and  1906  was  900,584 ;  in  other 
words,  within  a  period  of  twenty  years,  or  about  half  of 
the  duration  of  a  normal  conjugal  life,  over  1,800,000 
persons  were  divorced  from  each  other  by  formal  judicial 
decree.  In  1906  there  were  72,062  divorces  against 
853,290  marriages  —  one  divorce  for  every  twelve 
marriages. 

These  figures  convey  some  notion  of  the  extent  of  mari- 
tal unhappiness  under  prevailing  conditions,  especially 
if  we  bear  in  mind  that  divorce  actions  in  our  courts  are 
distasteful  and  repulsive  proceedings,  which  the  more 
sensitive  individuals  try  to  avoid  at  any  cost.  The  great- 


182  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

est  conjugal  tragedies  are  not  enacted  in  open  court- 
room, but  are  suffered  in  tearful  silence  in  the  seclusion 
of  the  shattered  home. 

Nor  is  divorce  the  only  curb  upon  present-day  mar- 
riages. The  "other  considerations"  than  love  to  which 
my  opponent  alludes  involve  among  other  things  the 
economic  ability  of  the  man  to  support  a  family.  And 
this  ability  is  on  the  constant  decrease  in  our  blissful 
capitalist  system,  with  the  rising  cost  of  living,  insuffi- 
cient wages,  and  general  economic  insecurity.  Accord- 
ing to  the  census  figures  of  1910  the  total  male  popu- 
lation of  the  country,  twenty  years  old  and  over,  was 
about  28,000,000.  Out  of  these  8,102,062  were  single, 
1,470,280  widowed,  and  155,815  divorced.  Out  of 
the  25,500,000  women  over  twenty  years  old  4,947,406 
were  single,  3,165,967  were  widowed,  and  181,418 
divorced. 

Thus  out  of  a  total  of  53,500,000  adult  Americans 
18,000,000,  or  more  than  a  third,  were  unmated.  "This," 
observes  Commissioner  Rittenhouse,  who  was  charged 
with  the  task  of  investigating  the  alarming  facts,  "is 
an  unfortunate  and  startling  state  of  affairs.  Moreover, 
from  the  ranks  of  the  unmarried  comes  humanity's 
heaviest  contribution  to  immorality  and  crime."  Yes, 
especially  when  aided  by  the  economic  misery  of  millions 
of  women.  If  my  opponent  wants  more  "data"  on  this 
interesting  subject,  I  respectfully  refer  him  to  Mr.  Knee- 
land's  reports  of  vice  conditions  in  New  York  and 
Chicago,1  and  the  harrowing  revelations  contained  in 
them.  A  marriage  made  in  the  counting-room  and 

1  Report  of  Municipal  Vice  Commission,  Chicago,  1911.  "Com- 
mercialized Prostitution,"  by  George  J.  Kneeland,  New  York,  1913. 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  183 

terminating  in  the  divorce  courts;  a  "monogamous" 
marriage  supplemented  by  wholesale  enforced  celibacy 
and  tempered  by  open  prostitution  and  clandestine 
adultery  —  such  is  the  typical  marriage  under  Capitalism 
which  my  opponent  seeks  to  save  from  the  onslaughts  of 
the  wicked  Socialists. 

My  opponent's  main  argument  against  what  he  de- 
risively terms  "love-unions"  is  that,  since  such  unions 
are  largely  predicated  on  economic  independence,  their 
realization  calls  for  a  "vast  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
women  in  industrial  occupations."  Such  a  situation, 
however,  he  considers  highly  undesirable  because  "prob- 
ably nine-tenths  of  the  women  who  are  now  engaged  in 
manufacture,  and  a  large  proportion  of  those  in  trade 
and  transportation,  are  performing  tasks  which  are  phys- 
ically and  morally  detrimental  to  themselves,  and  there- 
fore to  the  race." 

Dr.  Ryan  seems  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the  prevail- 
ing conditions  of  work  are  "physically  and  morally 
detrimental,"  not  to  women  alone,  but  to  men  as  well, 
and  that  these  conditions  are  not  inherent  in  industry, 
but  are  made  so  by  the  exigencies  of  the  capitalist 
system  based  on  intense  and  merciless  exploitation  of 
labour. 

Socialism  strives  to  render  work  more  wholesome, 
easy,  and  attractive,  and  to  secure  to  each  working- 
man  a  return  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  take  care  of  his 
family  in  decency  and  comfort.  Under  such  conditions 
women's  work  will  naturally  cease  to  be  "physically 
and  morally  detrimental,"  and  besides,  they  will  not  be 
forced  to  engage  in  industrial  employment  unless  their 


1 84  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

family  duties  will  permit  them  and  unless  they  freely 
choose  to  do  so.  Will  women  under  such  conditions 
continue  to  take  active  part  in  the  industrial  life  of  the 
nation?  At  the  risk  of  being  classed  by  my  opponent 
with  that  "blatant  and  shameless"  clique  of  "fem- 
inists," I  venture  the  prediction  that  very  many  of  them 
will. 

Dr.  Ryan  seems  to  assume  in  his  argument:  i.  that 
all  women  are  married ;  2.  that  all  married  women  bear 
children;  3.  that  all  married  women  bear  children  and 
nurse  them  all  the  time. 

All  these  assumptions,  to  borrow  a  happy  phrase  from 
my  opponent,  violate  "some  of  the  most  palpable  facts 
of  human  nature  and  human  life." 

In  his  rebuttal  Dr.  Ryan  again  reverts  to  the  charge 
that  Socialist  morality  is  based  on  expediency  rather 
than  on  abstract  love  of  justice.  He  does  not  deny  that 
the  accepted  methods  of  the  Socialist  movement  are 
quite  consonant  with  good  morals,  but  he  assures  us 
that  if  the  Socialists  had  believed  that  their  ends  could 
be  more  easily  gained  by  methods  of  lawlessness  and  vio- 
lence, they  would  not  hesitate  to  resort  to  such  methods. 

Without  admitting  this  entirely  unprovable  hypoth- 
esis, I  will  observe  that  in  actual  fact  there  can  be  no 
opposition  or  antagonism  between  social  expediency 
and  true  social  morality.  In  support  of  this  contention 
I  may  quote  an  authority  who  enjoys  the  respect  of  my 
opponent  as  much  as  my  own  — I  refer  to  Dr.  John 
Augustine  Ryan.  In  speaking  of  certain  planks  in  the 
Socialist  programme,  in  the  third  chapter  of  this  book, 
Dr.  Ryan  remarks:  "Their  ethical  character  can  be 


SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY  185 

determined  only  through  an  examination  of  their  bearing 
upon  human  welfare.  This  is  the  ultimate  test  of  the 
morality  of  any  social  system.  In  the  matter  of  social 
institutions,  moral  values  and  genuine  expediency  are 
in  the  long  run  identical." 
To  this  view  I  heartily  subscribe. 


CHAPTER  VI 

SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION 

I.  SOCIALISM  is  IRRELIGIOUS 

BY  JOHN  A.   RYAN,   D.D. 

To  the  charge  that  their  movement  is  irreligious, 
Socialists  frequently  reply  that  no  support  for  this  con- 
tention can  be  found  in  the  party  platforms.  In  a  gen- 
eral way  the  reply  is  true ;  it  is  also  for  the  most  part 
irrelevant. 

In  1891  the  "Erfurt  Programme,"  probably  the  most 
authoritative  of  all  the  party  declarations,  demanded 
that  religion  "be  declared  a  private  concern."  In  the 
national  convention  of  1908  the  Socialist  Party  of  the 
United  States  proclaimed  itself  to  be  "primarily  an 
economic  and  political  movement  .  .  .  not  concerned 
with  matters  of  religious  belief." 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  declarations  we  must 
bear  carefully  in  mind  that  it  is  merely  a  "demand  for 
the  present,"  a  statement  of  the  attitude  which  the 
Socialists  desire  to  see  maintained  by  existing  govern- 
ments. 

It  is  not  placed  among  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  platform,  and  consequently  does  not  commit  the 
party  to  the  belief  or  conviction  that  such  a  policy  of 
toleration  should  or  would  prevail  in  the  Socialist  State. 

Hence  its  importance  is  not  paramount. 

186 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  187 

Moreover,  both  declarations  need  to  be  interpreted. 
The  platforms  are  not  a  complete  expression  of  the  teach- 
ing and  tendencies  of  the  movement.  All  that  they  can 
attempt  is  to  set  forth  briefly  the  most  essential  prin- 
ciples and  the  practical  proposals. 

In  the  words  of  Liebknecht,  a  platform  "cannot  be 
a  commentary.  The  agitators,  the  journalists,  and  the 
learned  of  the  party  must  give  the  commentary. "  1 

One  of  the  most  enlightening  and  exhilarating  illus- 
trations of  this  rule  will  be  found  in  the  "Official  Pro- 
ceedings" (pp.  191-205)  of  the  Chicago  Convention 
of  1908.  More  than  one  of  the  "agitators,  the  journal- 
ists, and  the  learned  of  the  party"  furnished  a  very  help- 
ful commentary  on  the  religious-neutrality  plank. 

To  avow  the  true  scientific  Socialist  position  on  the 
subject  of  religion  would,  they  pointed  out,  be  decidedly 
bad  tactics  in  a  presidential  campaign. 

The  evidence  that  the  Socialist  movement  (as  distin- 
guished from  the  contemplated  Socialist  State)  is  un- 
friendly, if  not  actively  hostile,  to  religion,  and  that  the 
Socialist  philosophy  is  incompatible  with  religious 
convictions  is  overwhelming. 

Let  us  summarize  this  testimony. 

Karl  Marx:  "The  religious  world  is  but  the  reflex 
of  the  real  world.  And  for  a  society  based  upon  the  pro- 
duction of  commodities,  .  .  .  Christianity,  with  its 
cultus  of  the  abstract  man,  more  especially  in  its  bour- 
geois developments,  Protestantism,  Deism,  etc.,  is  the 
most  fitting  form  of  religion."  2 

1  "Socialism :  What  It  Is,  and  What  It  Seeks  to  Accomplish,"  p.  35 ; 
Kerr  &  Co. 

2 "Capital,"  I,  32;  Humboldt  Edition. 


1 88  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Frederick  Engels,  the  cofounder  of  modern  Socialism : 
"Now  religion  is  but  the  fantastic  reflection  in  men's 
minds  of  the  external  forces  which  dominate  their  every- 
day existence,  a  reflection  in  which  earthly  forces  take 
the  form  of  the  supernatural."  1 

August  Bebel,  whose  authority  is  second  only  to  that 
of  Marx  and  Engels:  "Religion  is  the  transcendental 
image  of  society  at  any  given  period.  The  religion  of 
society  changes  in  the  same  manner  as  society  changes 
and  as  its  development  increases.  The  ruling  classes 
seek  to  preserve  it  as  a  means  of  upholding  their  su- 
premacy." 2 

Joseph  Dietzgen,  also  associated  with  Marx,  and  per- 
haps the  most  philosophical  writer  of  the  movement: 
"Yet  Socialism  and  Christianity  differ  from  each  other 
as  the  day  does  from  the  night.  .  .  .  Indeed,  all  reli- 
gion is  servile,  but  Christianity  is  the  most  servile  of 
the  servile."  8 

Paul  Lafargue,  son-in-law  of  Marx,  and  leading  thinker 
of  the  Socialist  movement  in  France:  "The  victory  of 
the  proletariat  will  deliver  humanity  from  the  night- 
mare of  religion."  4 

Emile  Vandervelde,  the  ablest  of  the  Belgian  Socialists : 
"For  the  Roman  Church  religion  is  not  merely  a  meta- 
physical doctrine,  but  a  political  and  social  doctrine 
whose  dominant  ideas  are  diametrically  opposed  to  the 
Socialist  ideas."  5 

1  "Landmarks  of    Scientific   Socialism,"  pp.   256,   257;    Chicago, 
1907. 

2  "Woman,"  p.  146;  San  Francisco,  1897. 

8  "Philosophical  Essays,"  p.  122;  Chicago,  1906. 

4 International  Socialist  Review,  November,  1903,  p.  293. 

6  "Le  Mouvement  Socialiste,"  No.  113,  p.  201. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  189 

Enrico  Ferri,  perhaps  the  most  learned  and  widely 
read  of  the  Italian  Socialists:  "Socialism  knows  and 
foresees  that  religious  beliefs  .  .  .  are  destined  to  perish 
by  atrophy  with  the  extension  of  even  elementary 
scientific  culture."  1 

Robert  Blatchford,  who  has  been  more  widely  read 
than  any  other  English  Socialist:  "The  greatest  curse 
of  humanity  is  ignorance.  Religion,  being  based  on 
fixed  authority,  is  naturally  opposed  to  knowledge."  2 

Belford  Bax,  also  an  Englishman,  who  has  written 
on  religion  and  ethics  from  the  viewpoint  of  Marxian 
Socialism:  "Lastly,  one  word  on  that  singular  hybrid, 
the  Christian  Socialist.  .  .  .  The  association  of  Chris- 
tianism  with  any  form  of  Socialism  is  a  mystery,  rivalling 
the  mysterious  combination  of  ethical  and  other  contra- 
dictions in  the  Christian  divinity  itself."  3 

George  D.  Herron,  at  one  time  a  Congregationalist 
minister :  "The  church  of  to-day  sounds  the  lowest  note 
in  human  life.  It  is  the  most  degrading  of  all  our  insti- 
tutions, and  the  most  brutalizing  in  its  effects  on  the 
common  life.  For  Socialism  to  use  it,  to  make  terms 
with  it,  or  let  it  make  approaches  to  the  Socialist  move- 
ment, is  for  Socialism  to  take  Judas  to  its  bosom."  4 

John  Spargo,  likewise  a  former  Protestant  clergyman, 
the  author  of  more  Socialist  productions  than  any  other 
man  in  the  United  States:  "The  ethics  of  Christianity, 
like  its  practices,  are  characterized  by  a  monstrous 
disregard  of  the  common  life.  Christianity  and  tyranny 

1  "Socialism  and  Modern  Science,"  p.  63;  Chicago,  1909. 

*  "God  and  My  Neighbor,"  p.  195;  Chicago,  1904. 
8  "Ethics  of  Socialism,"  p.  52. 

*  The  Worker,  March  30,  1902. 


SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

have  for  ages  been  firmly  allied.  The  ethical  teaching 
of  Jesus  even  was  not  Socialism;  even  His  pure  spirit 
had  no  clear  concept  of  that  great  common-life  standard 
which  the  race  was  destined  to  reach  through  centuries 
of  struggle  and  pain."  1 

William  English  Walling,  a  very  able  American  So- 
cialist author:  "We  may  slightly  paraphrase  Bebel's 
statement  above  given,  and  say  that  the  majority  of 
Socialists  are  firmly  convinced  that  Socialism  and  modern 
science  must  finally  lead  to  a  state  of  society  where  there 
will  be  no  room  whatever  for  religion  in  any  form."  2 
Moreover,  Mr.  Walling  declares  in  the  same  paragraph 
that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  Socialists  believe 
that  religion  will  disappear  without  any  violent  attack, 
and  are  working  to  "hasten  that  day." 

Now,  the  leaders  just  cited,  and  others  who  take  the 
same  attitude  toward  religion,  are  the  makers  of  Socialist 
literature.  They  have  written  books  which  are  every- 
where recognized  as  authoritative,  which  are  read  by 
the  more  intelligent  Socialists,  and  which  through  news- 
papers, magazines,  and  speeches  filter  down  to  the  rank 
and  file. 

Consult,  for  example,  the  list  of  works  advertised  by 
the  chief  Socialist  publishing  house  in  America,  C.  H. 
Kerr  &•  Co.,  in  the  pamphlet,  "What  to  Read  on  Social- 
ism,"3 and  the  books  recommended  in  Socialist  meet- 
ings, and  by  Socialist  writers,  lecturers,  and  lecture 
bureaus. 

The  prominence  of  antireligious  statements  and  theo- 

1  Editorial  in  The  Comrade,  May,  1903. 

2  "The  Larger  Aspects  of  Socialism,"  p.  381 ;  New  York,  1913. 
1  Chicago,  1911. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  191 

ries  in  Socialist  books  naturally  varies  according  to  the 
class  of  readers  for  which  they  are  primarily  intended. 
In  popular  works  like  those  of  John  Spargo,  the  shock 
to  the  religious  believer  is  reduced  to  a  minimum.  In 
the  more  scientific  and  fundamental  treatises,  such  as 
those  of  Marx,  Engels,  Bebel,  and  Lafargue,  the  irre- 
ligious implications  of  Socialist  doctrine  are  presented  in 
all  their  repulsiveness.  Speaking  summarily,  we  are 
justified  in  saying  that  practically  all  standard  Socialist 
books  contain,  explicitly  or  implicitly,  some  quantity 
of  irreligious  materialism;  that  the  most  authoritative 
and  systematic  of  them  (mostly  from  the  German)  are 
saturated  with  it;  and  that  the  average  religious  be- 
liever who  reads  sympathetically  many  of  these  books 
is  in  imminent  danger  of  either  losing  his  faith  or  per- 
verting it  into  something  quite  "undogmatic"  and 
meaningless. 

"Unless  it  retires  to  one  of  the  poles  of  the  earth, 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  like  all  other  despotisms,  will 
soon  be  crowded  off  the  earth."  [ 

"For  us,  we  fear  the  enmity  of  the  Church  less  than  its 
friendship,  and  this  we  should  say  equally  of  any  other 
church,  or  any  other  organization  accepting  the  capital- 
ist ideal."  2 

"The  very  word  Socialism  embodies  an  ethical  con- 
cept infinitely  higher  than  anything  that  organized  reli- 
gion has  ever  known.  Nothing  could  well  be  more 
dangerous  than  the  no  doubt  well-meant  attempts  to 
prove  Socialism  true  by  an  appeal  to  religion."  3 

1  The  International  Socialist  Review,  August,  1912,  p.  118. 

2  The  Worker,  May  i,  1902. 
*  The  Comrade,  April,  1902. 


192  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

"To  be  sure,  scientific  Socialism  has  certain  aspects 
with  which  the  Church  must  of  necessity  disagree."  l 

"It  is  characteristic  of  the  Roman  Church  that  it 
keeps  the  masses  in  ignorance  and  bigotry,  and  thus  in 
submission  to  the  ruling  class."  2 

Practically  all  Socialist  magazines  and  newspapers 
publish  something  of  this  sort  occasionally.  The  more 
popular  periodicals  contain  less  of  it  than  those  which 
are  designed  for  the  educated  and  for  persons  confirmed 
in  the  Socialist  faith.  Witness  the  difference  in  this  re- 
spect between  the  Appeal  to  Reason  and  the  International 
Socialist  Review.  Moreover,  the  newspapers  present 
anti-religious  doctrine  in  a  more  indirect  and  diluted 
form  than  the  books.  Nevertheless,  the  spirit  of  all  of 
them  is  quite  other  than  the  spirit  of  religion. 

The  oratorical  expressions  of  the  Socialist  movement 
seem  to  be  irreligious  in  about  the  same  degree  as  the 
newspapers.  During  political  campaigns  the  party 
speakers  refrain,  as  a  rule,  from  utterances  which  are 
specifically  offensive  to  religious  persons.  At  other  times 
statements  of  this  character  are  fairly  frequent,  both 
from  the  "soap  box"  and  from  the  lecture  platform. 

The  great  majority  of  Socialists  seem  to  be  either 
unfriendly  to  religion,  or  at  least  to  have  severed  their 
connection  with  the  church  and  the  synagogue.  While 
this  statement  is  from  the  nature  of  the  case  incapable 
of  mathematical  demonstration,  it  is  so  well  established 
by  universal  observation  that  no  Socialist  seriously  at- 
tempts to  call  it  in  question.  So  far  as  Catholics  are 

1  The  Call,  January  5,  1912. 

*  The  Social  Democratic  Herald,  August  12,  1912. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  193 

concerned,  I  am  certain  that  only  an  insignificant  frac- 
tion of  those  who  become  identified  with  the  Socialist 
movement  remain  loyal  sons  of  the  Church.  Except 
in  an  infinitesimal  number  of  cases,  they  cannot  truth- 
fully assert  that  they  have  been  "driven  out  of  the 
Church  by  the  priest."  They  have  been  driven  out,  or 
drawn  out,  by  the  irreligious  teaching  and  influences 
pervading  the  movement.  In  America,  as  in  Europe, 
the  normal  result  of  Catholic  affiliation  with  Socialism 
is  that  noted  by  the  editor  of  Justice : *  "Roman  Cath- 
olics, I  gladly  recognize,  have  become  very  good  So- 
cialists, but  only  on  condition  of  becoming  very  bad 
Catholics." 

It  is  occasionally  asserted  by  Socialists  that  the  irre- 
ligious utterances  of  the  movement  should  not  be  charged 
against  the  Socialist  organization,  any  more  than  similar 
expressions  from  prominent  Democrats  and  Republicans 
should  be  set  down  to  the  discredit  of  their  respective 
political  parties. 

But  the  cases  are  not  parallel.  In  the  first  place,  there 
is  a  very  great  difference  of  proportion.  Only  a  small 
minority  of  the  distinguished  members  of  the  old  parties 
are  avowed  atheists  or  agnostics,  while  practically  all 
the  leaders  of  Socialism  must  be  so  classified.  James 
Leatham,  a  well-known  English  Socialist,  writes :  — 

"At  the  present  moment  I  cannot  remember  a  single 
instance  of  a  person  who  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  a 
really  earnest  and  intelligent  Socialist  and  an  orthodox 
Christian.  .  .  .  Marx,  Lassalle,  and  Engels  among 
the  earlier  Socialists;  Morris,  Bax,  Hyndman,  Guesde, 
and  Bebel  among  present-day  Socialists  —  are  all  more 

1  London,  September  30,  1909. 
o 


194  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

or  less  avowed  atheists;  and  what  is  true  of  the  more 
notable  men  of  the  party  is  almost  equally  true  of  the 
rank  and  file  the  world  over."  l 

This  statement  is  substantially  applicable  to  the 
United  States. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Socialist  leaders  deliberately 
connect  their  irreligion  with  their  Socialism,  and  propa- 
gate it  in  books  and  periodicals  which  are  primarily 
intended  for  the  advocacy  of  Socialism.  Their  agnosti- 
cism and  their  Socialism  go  hand  in  hand. 

We  are  sometimes  told  that  Socialism  in  the  United 
States  shows  very  little  of  that  antagonism  to  religion 
which  prevails  on  the  Continent.  This  is  a  mistake. 
Both  the  leaders  and  the  literature  of  the  American 
movement  are  in  harmony  with  the  International  Social- 
ist position  on  this  subject.  Whatever  minor  differences 
exist  are  of  method,  not  of  substance  or  spirit.  The 
opposition  of  American  members  of  the  party  to  religion 
is  apparently  less  outspoken,  less  crude,  and  less  direct 
than  that  of  their  European  comrades ;  but  it  is  not  less 
positive,  insidious,  and  menacing.  A  striking  and  con- 
clusive proof  of  this  view  is  found  in  the  latest  book  of 
Professor  Rauschenbusch. 

Speaking  of  American  conditions,  he  declares  that  men 
who  draw  their  "democracy  and  moral  order  from  Jesus" 
have  difficulty  in  cooperating  with  party  Socialism.  In 
Socialist  meetings  they  "find  an  almost  universal  attitude 
of  suspicion  and  dislike  against  the  Church,  which  often 
rises  to  downright  hate  and  bitterness,  and  expands  to 
general  antagonism  against  religion  itself.  The  material- 

1  "Socialism  and  Character,"  pp.  2,  3;  London,  1897. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  195 

istic  philosophy  of  history,  as  the  average  Socialist  ex- 
pounds it,  emphasizes  the  economic  and  material  factors 
of  life  so  exclusively  that  the  spiritual  elements  of  hu- 
manity seem  as  unimportant  as  the  colouring  of  a  flower 
or  the  bloom  on  the  grape.  In  large  parts  of  the  party 
literature  the  social  and  economic  teachings  of  Socialism 
are  woven  through  with  a  web  of  materialistic  philosophy, 
which  is  part  of  'Scientific  Socialism.'  The  party  plat- 
form declares  religion  to  be  a  private  matter,  but  that 
declaration  of  neutrality  does  not  exclude  persistent  at- 
tacks on  religion  by  official  exponents  of  the  party."  l 

Such  is  the  experience  and  observation  of  a  man  who 
desires  economic  Socialism,  and  the  reconciliation  of  the 
Socialist  movement  with  religion,  and  whose  conception 
of  the  Christian  Church  would  enable  him  to  make  very 
liberal  concessions  of  dogma  to  attain  these  ends.  If 
his  religious  sentiments  are  shocked  by  the  spirit  of  the 
Socialist  movement  in  the  United  States,  it  is  certain  that 
no  orthodox  Christian,  surely  no  genuine  Catholic,  could 
feel  at  home  there. 

The  explanation  offered  by  John  Spargo  of  this  con- 
stant association  of  Socialism  with  irreligion  is  not  at  all 
adequate.2  While  the  founders  of  Modern  Socialism  did 
attempt  to  erect  it  upon  the  teachings  of  science,  which 
in  their  time  was  supposed  to  be  atheistic,  this  fact  does 
not  fully  account  for  the  irreligious  attitude  of  the  So- 
cialist leaders  of  to-day,  when  genuine  science  no  longer 
puts  itself  in  opposition  to  religion. 

Not  science,  but  economic  determinism  must  shoulder 
the  greater  part  of  the  responsibility.  Thousands  and 

1  "Christianizing  the  Social  Order,"  pp.  397,  398;  New  York,  1912. 

2  "The  Spiritual  Significance  of  Modern  Socialism,"  pp.  95,  96. 


1 96  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

thousands  of  men  who  have  been  drawn  into  the  Socialist 
movement  by  its  economic  proposals  sooner  or  later 
have  found  that  their  religious  faith  was  incompatible 
with  a  theory  which  reduces  all  social  forces  and  changes 
ultimately  to  economic  and  material  causes,  leaving  no 
place  in  the  universe  for  the  original  and  independent 
action  of  spiritual  forces,  or  for  the  existence  of  that  dis- 
tinct entity  called  a  spiritual  soul.  The  Socialist  news- 
paper, the  New  York  Call,1  stated  the  situation  exactly 
when  it  said:  "The  theory  of  economic  determinism 
alone,  if  thoroughly  grasped,  leaves  no  room  for  a  belief 
in  the  supernatural. " 

The  materialistic  view  of  the  universe  and  of  life  which 
is  implicit  in  this  theory  has  not  remained  merely  im- 
plicit. It  has  been  made  quite  explicit  by  the  leaders 
and  scholars  of  the  Socialist  movement.  They  have 
applied  it  specifically  to  the  phenomenon  of  religion. 
They  have  expressly  declared  that  religion  is  a  product 
of  economic  conditions,  that  it  changes  with  the  changes 
in  these  conditions,  and  that  the  present  forms  of  religion 
will  disappear  with  the  disappearance  of  the  existing 
economic  system.  Kautsky,  Labriola,  and  Engels  have 
given  considerable  attention  to  this  phase  of  economic 
determinism. 

According  to  Kautsky,  Christianity  arose  as  a  move- 
ment for  social  reform  among  the  slaves  and  the  prole- 
tariat, but,  owing  to  changes  in  economic  and  political 
conditions,  became  a  bulwark  of  the  capitalist  class.2 
Engels  tries  to  show  that  mediaeval  Catholicism  was  but 
the  religious  reflex  of  feudalism ;  that  Lutheranism  arose 

1  March  2,  1911. 

1  "Der  Ursprung  des  Christentums,"  pp.  481,  sq.;  Stuttgart,  1910. 


SOCIALISM   AND   RELIGION  197 

when  feudalism  fell ;  that  Calvinism  was  the  outgrowth 
of  republican  ideas  in  Switzerland,  Holland,  and  Scot- 
land ;  and  that  freethinking  responded  to  the  economico- 
political  conditions  in  France  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolu- 
tion.1 Finally,  Christianity  will  go  out  of  existence  with 
the  downfall  of  Capitalism  and  private  property.  "If 
our  juridical,  philosophical,  and  religious  ideas  are  the 
more  or  less  remote  offshots  of  the  economical  relations 
prevailing  in  a  given  society,  such  ideas  can  not,  in  the 
long  run,  withstand  the  effects  of  a  complete  change  in 
these  relations."  2 

How  could  a  movement  whose  literature  is  permeated 
by  such  explanations  of,  and  such  an  attitude  toward, 
religion  be  otherwise  than  irreligious  ? 

If  there  be  any  intelligent  student  of  Socialism  who 
honestly  thinks  that  it  is  merely  an  economic  theory, 
or  who  hopes  that  the  Socialist  State  is  likely  to  be  in- 
stituted and  maintained  in  conformity  with  the  tradi- 
tional principles  of  religion  and  morals,  he  will  be  con- 
strained to  accept  the  following  suggestions  as  entirely 
reasonable  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  Christian  and  the 
Theist :  — 

Let  Socialists  eliminate  from  their  postulates,  princi- 
ples, and  propaganda  every  element  which  is  contrary 
to  the  traditional  teaching  on  morals  and  religion.  This 
will  mean  repudiation  of  the  theory  of  economic  deter- 
minism in  so  far  as  the  theory  implies  materialism  in 
philosophy,  relativity  in  ethics,  and  in  religion  agnosti- 
cism. 

1  Feuerbach,  "The  Roots  of  Socialist  Philosophy,"  pp.  121-124. 

2  "Socialism:  Utopian  and  Scientific,"  Introduction,  p.  xxxvii. 


198  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

It  will  mean  that  they  will  no  longer  defend  confisca- 
tion and  "love  unions,"  nor  make  the  working-class  and 
the  Socialist  State  the  supreme  standard  of  morality, 
nor  teach  that  the  principles  of  morality  are  essentially 
variable. 

It  will  mean  the  cessation  of  their  antagonism  toward 
religion,  and  of  their  attempts  to  explain  the  origin  and 
development  of  religion  on  social  and  economic  grounds. 

It  will  mean  that  capitalists  whose  property  is  to  be 
taken  by  the  Socialist  State  are  to  receive  full  compensa- 
tion, and  that  no  industry  which  is  not  a  natural  monop- 
oly is  to  be  operated  by  the  State  until  experience  has 
proved  that  the  latter  is  more  efficient  than  private  en- 
terprise. 

How  can  Socialists  accomplish  this  task  of  elimination, 
expurgation,  and  purification?  By  a  method  that  is 
elementary  in  its  simplicity.  Let  the  Socialist  party  in 
national  convention  formally  repudiate  all  the  printed 
works  which  contain  teaching  contrary  to  the  doctrines 
and  proposals  advocated  in  the  last  four  paragraphs; 
or  let  it  appoint  a  committee  charged  with  the  duty  of 
relentlessly  expurgating  from  the  approved  books  and 
pamphlets  everything  but  the  economic  arguments  and 
proposals  of  Socialism.  Let  the  convention  solemnly 
condemn  beforehand  all  periodicals,  writers,  and  speakers 
who  refuse  to  conform  to  the  new  policy ;  and  let  it  com- 
mit the  party  to  a  programme  of  "socialization"  by  a 
gradual  process,  through  the  method  of  competition 
in  all  competitive  industries,  and  with  full  compensation 
to  all  capitalists  whose  property  is  taken  over  by  the 
Socialist  State. 

Only  through  formal  action  of  this  kind  can  the  Social- 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  199 

ist  movement  purge  itself  of  responsibility  for  anti- 
religious  and  immoral  teaching,  or  become  a  purely 
economic  organization  and  agency.  When  this  has 
been  done,  and  the  new  policy  in  good  faith  enforced, 
religious  opposition  to  Socialism  will  probably  cease. 
Until  it  has  been  done,  no  such  result  can  be  expected 
by  any  intelligent  man  who  is  honest  in  his  thinking. 


II.  SOCIALISM  is  NON-RELIGIOUS 

BY  MORRIS  HILLQUIT 

Dr.  Ryan  in  substance  charges  the  Socialist  movement 
with  irreconcilable  hostility  to  all  forms  of  religion  and 
maintains  that  a  Socialist  order  of  society  would  be  in- 
compatible with  the  observance  of  true  religious  practices. 

To  what  extent,  if  any,  can  the  charge  be  sustained  ? 

At  the  outset  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized 
that  the  organized  Socialist  movement  as  such  is  not 
hostile  to  religion.  Nor  is  it  friendly  to  it.  It  is  entirely 
neutral  in  all  matters  of  religious  belief. 

"Religion  is  a  private  matter,"  proclaims  the  Erfurt 
Programme,  adopted  by  the  German  Social  Democracy 
in  1891,  and  the  Socialist  Party  of  the  United  States  as 
late  as  1908  made  the  still  more  specific  declaration : 
"The  Socialist  Party  represents  primarily  an  economic 
and  political  movement.  It  is  not  concerned  with 
matters  of  religious  belief." 

That  these  party  declarations  mean  precisely  what 
they  say  appears  abundantly  from  the  testimony  of  the 
most  authoritative  spokesmen  of  the  Socialist  movement. 

Dr.  Anton  Pannekoek,  an  influential  and  accepted 


200  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

modern  writer  on  Socialism,  states  the  proposition  most 
tersely  and  cogently  when  he  observes :  — 

"We  Socialists  consider  religion  as  a  private  concern 
of  each  individual,  and  we  demand  that  the  state  shall 
take  the  same  position.  This  demand  proves  clearly 
that  the  assertion  of  the  clergy  that  we  wish  to  abolish 
religion  is  simply  a  deception  and  slander.  The  plat- 
form plank,  Religion  is  a  private  matter,  clearly  ex- 
presses that  fundamental  character  of  our  movement  by 
which  it  may  be  distinguished  from  all  earlier  revolu- 
tionary mass  movements.  We  do  not  inquire  into  per- 
sonal views ;  we  do  not  demand  any  profession  of  faith ; 
we  insist  only  on  cooperation  in  our  practical  aims.  Our 
aim  is  a  definite,  material  transformation  of  society,  a 
different  regulation  of  labour,  the  substitution  of  the  Socialist 
mode  of  production  for  the  capitalist  system.  Nothing 
else.  Anybody  who  wants  to  cooperate  with  us  for  the 
attainment  of  this  aim  is  welcome  as  a  comrade-in-arms, 
regardless  of  his  philosophic,  religious,  or  other  personal 
views.  Our  aims  bear  no  relation  to  religion  —  they 
move  in  entirely  different  spheres. "  * 

Wilhelm  Liebknecht  elucidates  the  party  declaration 
of  neutrality  in  the  following  instructive  language  :  — 

"Socialism  as  such  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with 
religion.  Every  man  has  the  right  to  think  and  believe 
what  he  will,  and  no  man  has  the  right  to  molest  another 
in  his  thoughts  or  beliefs  or  to  place  him  at  a  disadvan- 
tage on  their  account.  .  .  .  Opinions  and  beliefs  must 
be  free.  We,  as  Socialists,  must  respect  them,  and  those 
Socialists  who  respect  the  sincerity  of  the  beliefs  of  their 
fellow-men  will  also  avoid  scoffing  at  them." 

1 "  Die  Abschaffung  des  Eigentums,  des  Staates  und  der  Religion." 


SOCIALISM  AND   RELIGION  2OI 

The  absolute  tolerance  of  the  Socialist  movement 
toward  all  religious  beliefs  makes  it  possible  for  many 
of  its  adherents  to  combine  deep  religious  convictions 
and  even  devout  Church  practices  with  whole-hearted 
participation  in  the  practical  struggles  of  Socialism. 
"One  may  well  be  a  good  Christian,  and  still  feel  the 
warmest  sympathy  for  the  class  struggle  of  the  prole- 
tariat," attests  Karl  Kautsky,  the  foremost  living  ex- 
ponent of  Marxian  Socialism.  And  he  adds:  "The 
organization  of  the  militant  working-class,  the  Socialist 
party,  has  not  the  slightest  ground  to  reject  such  ele- 
ments, if  they  are  able  and  willing  to  fight  the  class 
struggle  in  our  way. "  l 

But  these  explicit  statements  do  not  satisfy  Dr.  Ryan. 
Following  the  example  of  most  clerical  opponents  of 
Socialism,  he  goes  "behind  the  record,"  and  seeks  to 
palliate  the  force  of  the  unambiguous  Socialist  declara- 
tions by  ingenious  interpretations  and  arguments.  He 
contends  that  the  accepted  Socialist  philosophy,  and  par- 
ticularly the  Marxian  doctrine  of  economic  determinism, 
are  inherently  incompatible  with  religious  beliefs,  and 
that  a  large  majority  of  Socialists  are  agnostics  or  atheists. 

These  conclusions  are  based  on  aprioristic  reasoning, 
unverifiable  general  observations,  alleged  but  unrecorded 
speeches,  and  fragmentary  utterances  of  Socialist  writers. 
They  are  rendered  plausible  by  a  somewhat  indiscrimi- 
nate use  of  terms. 

Throughout  the  discussion  my  opponent  employs  the 
expressions  Religion,  Christianity,  and  Church  inter- 
changeably and  without  any  attempt  to  define  or  differ- 
entiate them.  But  such  a  differentiation  is  very  essen- 

1  "Die  Sozialdemokratie  und  die  Katholische  Kirche." 


202  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

tial  for  a  fair  and  just  statement  of  the  Socialist  atti- 
tude. 

Probably  no  other  word  in  our  language  is  so  vague 
and  elastic  as  Religion.  In  the  attempted  definitions  of 
the  term  the  most  authoritative  dictionaries  and  stand- 
ard theological  works  present  an  almost  hopeless  con- 
fusion of  ideas,  through  which,  however,  two  main  con- 
ceptions may  be  roughly  distinguished.  The  first,  which 
we  shall  designate  as  the  idealistic  or  philosophic  concep- 
tion, defines  religion  as  any  belief  in  a  universal  and 
superhuman  force;  any  acceptance  of  a  great  ethical 
principle,  and  even  any  faith  in  a  high  social  ideal. 

The  second  or  dogmatic  school  of  theology  is  much 
more  concrete  in  its  conceptions,  and  defines  religion  as 
the  belief  in  and  ritualistic  worship  of  a  personal  God 
as  the  conscious  and  intelligent  creator  of  the  universe 
and  the  deliberate  guide  and  judge  of  our  individual 
actions  and  destinies. 

The  term  Christianity  is  somewhat  less  vague  than 
Religion,  but  like  the  latter  it  also  stands  for  two  widely 
different  meanings.  As  a  general  belief  in  the  moral 
doctrines  and  practices  of  Jesus,  Christianity  is  a  branch 
of  what  we  have  designated  as  idealistic  religion;  but 
as  a  literal  belief  in  the  rigid  body  of  Church  doctrines 
attaching  to  the  term  it  is  but  a  particular  form  of  "dog- 
matic" religion,  one  of  its  many  other  similar  forms, 
past  and  present. 

The  term  Church  is  not  synonymous  with  either  Re- 
ligion or  Christianity.  It  is  a  concrete  and  material 
institution  with  an  organization,  history,  and  policy 
of  its  own,  and  must  be  judged  by  different  standards 
than  either  religion  or  Christianity. 


SOCIALISM  AND   RELIGION  203 

There  is  obviously  no  antagonism  or  inconsistency 
between  the  Socialist  philosophy  and  the  various  ethical 
and  philosophic  systems  which  we  have  designated  as 
idealistic  religions.  In  fact,  Socialism  has  itself  often 
been  called  a  religion  in  that  sense.  But  even  the  rigid 
Catholic  conception  of  religion  does  not  always  seem  to 
be  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of  Marxian  Socialism, 
including  the  much-maligned  theory  of  economic  de- 
terminism. 

One  of  the  best  works  in  English  in  defence  of  the 
economic  interpretation  of  history  comes  from  the  pen 
of  a  prominent  and  orthodox  Catholic  priest.  This 
scholarly  book  is  entitled  "History  of  Economics,  or 
Economics  as  a  Factor  in  the  Making  of  History,"  and 
its  author  is  the  Reverend  J.  A.  Dewe,  late  Professor  of 
the  Catholic  College  of  St.  Thomas  in  St.  Paul.  It  is 
published  by  Benziger  Brothers,  "printers  to  the  Holy 
Apostolic  See,"  and  its  fly-leaf  bears  the  indispensable 
"Nihil  Obstat"  of  the  Catholic  book  censor  as  well  as  the 
official  Imprimatur  of  Archbishop,  now  Cardinal,  John 
M.  Farley. 

The  summary  of  the  author's  economic  and  historical 
views,  contained  in  his  introduction,  reads  like  a  page 
from  Frederick  Engels.  "It  is  evident,"  says  the  Rever- 
end Dewe,  "that  economics  must  have  an  almost  un- 
bounded influence  on  human  conduct,  both  public  and 
private.  For  the  great  majority  spend  the  greater  part 
of  their  time  either  in  producing  or  distributing  wealth, 
and,  from  the  point  of  view  of  extension,  the  time  that  an 
ordinary  man  has  to  employ  in  earning  his  daily  bread 
is  greater  than  that  which  he  can  possibly  expend  in  ex- 
plicit acts  of  religion.  This  all-pervading  activity  of 


204  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

economics  is  still  more  apparent  in  the  state  or  common- 
wealth. In  the  whole  course  of  ancient  and  modern  his- 
tory there  is  scarcely  any  single  important  political  event 
that  has  not  been  caused,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  by 
some  economic  influence.  Religion  and  physical  causes 
may  also  have  been  present,  but  the  economic  factor  seems 
to  have  been  the  most  constant  and  the  most  pervasive."  1 

Evidently  Professor  J.  A.  Dewe  disagrees  with  the 
assertion  of  his  colleague  John  A.  Ryan  that  the  theory 
of  economic  determinism  contradicts  the  belief  of  every 
Christian,  and,  what  is  particularly  interesting  to  note, 
Professor  Dewe's  views  seem  to  have  the  official  sanction 
of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Still  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  majority  of 
Socialists  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile 
their  general  philosophic  views  with  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  dogmatic  religious  creeds.  In  that  sense  my 
opponent  is  perhaps  justified  in  asserting  that  the  So- 
cialist party  contains  a  larger  proportion  of  "agnostics" 
than  either  the  Republican  or  the  Democratic  party.  . 

But  Dr.  Ryan  is  entirely  in  the  wrong  when  he  points 
to  the  Marxian  philosophy,  and  particularly  to  the  theory 
of  economic  determinism,  as  the  specific  source  of  the 
non-orthodox  religious  views  of  the  average  Socialist. 
Orthodox  and  dogmatic  religious  beliefs  and  formalistic 
religious  practices  are  as  inconsistent  with  any  other 
scientific  system  of  social  or  philosophic  thought  as 
they  are  with  Marxism,  and  the  "irreligion"  of  the  So- 
cialists is  neither  greater  nor  less  than  the  "irreligion" 
of  the  average  enlightened  person  who  has  been  trained 
in  the  methods  of  contemporaneous  thought  and  who 
1  The  Italics  are  mine. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  205 

accepts  the  conclusions  of  modern  science.  The  only 
reason  why  the  type  of  the  "agnostic"  occurs  more  fre- 
quently in  the  Socialist  movement  than  in  the  ranks  of 
the  old  political  parties  is  that  the  average  Socialist  is 
better  instructed  and  more  independent  in  his  thinking 
than  the  average  Republican  or  Democratic  voter. 

Dr.  Ryan  assures  us  that  to-day  "genuine  science  no 
longer  puts  itself  in  opposition  to  religion"  ;  but  unfor- 
tunately he  fails  to  specify  the  sciences  which  he  con- 
siders "genuine,"  or  to  define  the  term  religion  in  this 
bold  sentence.  If  he  has  in  mind  the  more  modern  and 
rather  vague  idealistic  conceptions  of  religion,  then  I 
repeat  that  Socialism  also  does  not  "put  itself  in  opposi- 
tion "  to  it ;  but  if  he  refers  to  the  more  orthodox  and 
cruder  forms  of  religious  belief,  I  know  of  no  pact  of  rec- 
onciliation between  them  and  modern  sciences. 

"Genuine"  modern  science  shows  no  inclination  to 
compromise  with  traditional  dogmatic  theology,  and  the 
conflict  between  the  two  world  views  is  sharpest  where 
the  latter  exerts  its  strongest  sway.  Thus  Italy,  Spain, 
and  France,  the  strongholds  of  Catholicism,  are  also  the 
seats  of  the  most  aggressive  and  militant  atheism.  The 
Socialist  movement  in  those  countries  likewise  presents 
a  much  larger  proportion  of  agnostics  than  it  does  in  the 
United  States  and  in  other  countries  of  modernized  liberal 
creeds.  In  this  it  merely  reflects  the  general  state  of 
the  enlightened  public  mind  in  precisely  the  same  way 
as  any  other  advanced  section  of  the  population  —  no 
more  and  no  less. 

The  attitude  of  the  average  individual  Socialist  toward 
Religion  and  Christianity  may  thus  be  said  to  be  identical 


206  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

with  the  attitude  of  the  average  non-Socialist  of  similar 
state  of  general  enlightenment.  What  are  his  relations 
to  the  Church  as  an  organization  distinct  from  the  gen- 
eral institutions  of  Religion  or  Christianity  ? 

As  a  rule,  these  relations  must  be  admitted  to  be 
rather  strained,  and  I  believe  Dr.  Ryan's  observation 
that  the  majority  of  Socialists  "seem  to  have  severed 
their  connection  with  the  Church"  contains  a  large 
element  of  truth.  Not  alone  the  Socialist  movement,  but 
organized  labour  all  over  the  world  seems  to  develop  an 
ever  growing  sentiment  of  distrust  and  suspicion  toward 
the  Church.  And  the  responsibility  for  that  attitude 
rests  entirely  with  the  Church,  and  particularly  with  its 
social  and  economic  attitude  and  activities. 

For  the  Church  has  undergone  very  radical  changes 
within  the  nineteen  centuries  since  its  original  founda- 
tion. Born  as  a  revolt  of  the  lowly  and  disinherited 
against  the  oppression  of  the  rich  and  powerful  of  the 
world,  it  had  for  several  centuries  remained  the  true  and 
class-conscious  organization  of  the  proletariat  for  their 
mutual  economic  protection  and  social  salvation.  The 
primitive  Christian  community  at  Jerusalem  was,  in  the 
testimony  of  St.  Luke,  a  purely  communistic  institution, 
in  which  all  members  "who  were  possessed  of  lands  or 
houses  sold  them,  and  brought  the  price  of  the  things 
that  were  sold,  and  laid  them  down  at  the  apostles' 
feet ;  and  distribution  was  made  to  every  man  according 
as  he  had  need. " 

Throughout  the  first  centuries  of  our  era  the  fathers 
of  the  Church,  following  the  example  of  their  Master, 
condemned  the  wealthy  as  "robbers  of  the  poor"  and 
championed  the  right  of  all  human  beings  to  the  earth 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  207 

and  the  fruits  thereof.  It  was  owing  to  this  proletarian 
and  revolutionary  character  of  the  primitive  Christian 
Church  that  it  grew  and  expanded  into  a  world  power ; 
and  when  it  had  attained  that  power,  it  fell.  The  Chris- 
tian Church  never  had  a  concrete  social  and  economic 
programme.  Its  teachings  were  purely  abstract,  purely 
ethical.  Its  sole  social  significance  lay  in  its  negative 
expression  of  revolt ;  and  when  the  shrewd  ruling  classes 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  under  Constantine,  turned  per- 
secution into  favour,  and  elevated  Christianity  to  the 
dignity  of  a  State  and  court  religion,  they  drew  the  fangs 
from  the  dangerous  movement.  The  meaningless  form 
was  preserved,  but  the  living  substance  was  destroyed. 

Official  Christianity  was  reduced  to  a  set  of  formalistic 
practices  and  deprived  of  its  great  social  significance. 
And  the  Church  as  the  material  representative  of  domi- 
nant Christianity  became  itself  a  dominant  and  oppress- 
ing social  and  economic  organization.  In  the  Middle 
Ages  the  social  position  of  the  clergy  is  quite  akin  to 
that  of  the  nobility.  It  is  an  exploiting  class.  It  owns 
lands  and  costly  edifices  and  untold  treasures.  It  em- 
ploys labourers  and  armies  and  taxes  the  people.  It  vies 
with  kings  and  princes  for  temporal  power  and  often 
outdoes  them  in  worldly  splendour.  Of  the  spirit  and 
traditions  of  its  early  teaching  and  practices  remains 
nothing  but  the  dry  skeleton  of  formal  almsgiving. 

In  modern  times  the  Church  has  been  shorn  of  much 
of  its  temporal  power,  but  it  has  remained  the  steadfast 
ally  and  the  loyal  apologist  of  the  classes  in  power,  and 
the  determined  foe  of  the  common  people.  Every  form 
of  political  tyranny  and  social  and  economic  oppression 
has  invariably  had  its  spiritual  support  and  pastoral 


208  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

blessing.  Every  effort  of  the  downtrodden  to  lift  their 
heads  has  infallibly  met  with  its  stern  rebuke.  Serfdom 
and  slavery  were  sanctioned  by  the  Church  as  God- 
ordained  institutions.  The  brutal  and  rapacious  feudal 
lord  was  acclaimed  by  it  as  the  "soldier  of  Christ,"  and 
the  autocratic  tyrant  as  the  "anointed  of  God."  The 
struggles  of  the  nations  for  political  liberty  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century  and  the  American  antislavery  movement 
in  the  earlier  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  were  com- 
bated by  the  Church  as  wicked,  and  so,  on  the  whole,  are 
the  modern  struggles  of  the  workers  for  economic  justice. 

The  Church  can  be  relied  on  to  take  the  employer's 
side  in  every  important  labour  struggle.  It  counsels 
"Christian"  resignation  and  preaches  to  the  exploited 
workers  the  paralyzing  and  immoral  gospel  of  servile  sub- 
mission. It  hates  and  execrates  all  revolts  against  the 
ruling  classes,  and  that  is  the  true  reason  for  its  em- 
bittered war  against  Socialism,  the  most  radical  and 
potent  expression  of  the  modern  working-class  revolt. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  strenuous  anti-Socialist  agita- 
tion of  the  Catholic  Church  was  inspired  by  the  alleged 
"immorality"  or  "irreligion"  of  the  movement.  The 
Catholic  Church  remains  indifferent  and  inactive  in  the 
face  of  the  most  shocking  spread  of  prostitution,  white 
slavery,  and  all  forms  of  moral  degeneracy,  as  well  as 
to  the  rankest  manifestations  of  atheism,  so  long  as  they 
do  not  endanger  the  material  power  of  the  dominant 
classes.  The  Catholic  Church  cares  little  for  morality 
per  se.  Its  active  and  aggressive  attacks  are  always 
directed  against  liberating  movements,  and  the  charges 
of  immorality  and  irreligion  are  its  invariable  weapons 
of  warfare  in  such  cases. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  209 

Of  course,  this  rule,  as  all  rules,  does  not  operate  with- 
out exceptions.  All  modern  movements  for  human  up- 
lift have  had  the  active  and  enthusiastic  support  of  some, 
often  many,  high-minded  ministers  of  the  Church. 
But  they  have  been  the  exception ;  and,  particularly  in 
the  case  of  Catholic  priests,  the  exceptional  and  anoma- 
lous position  of  clerical  champions  of  popular  liberty  has 
often  been  accentuated  by  severe  discipline  from  the 
Mother  Church. 

And  still  I  should  advise  my  good  Catholic  comrades 
in  the  Socialist  and  labour  movement  not  to  take  the 
attacks  of  their  Church  too  much  to  heart.  For  just  as 
the  Church  has  ever  opposed  every  progressive  and 
revolutionary  movement,  just  so  has  it  uniformly  recon- 
ciled itself  with  those  movements  in  the  hours  of  their 
triumph  and  victory.  The  Catholic  Church  seems  quite 
loyal  in  its  support  of  republicanism,  personal  liberty, 
and  even  religious  freedom  in  all  countries  where  these 
privileges  have  been  won,  although  it  had  bitterly  op- 
posed all  these  institutions  before  their  establishment, 
and  still  opposes  them  in  countries  of  monarchical  form 
of  government  and  backward  social  organizations.  It 
is  therefore  quite  within  the  realm  of  the  possible  that 
when  the  Socialist  movement  shall  have  attained  its 
object,  and  the  Socialist  commonwealth  shall  be  an  ac- 
complished fact,  the  Catholic  Church  will  confer  on  it 
its  belated  blessings,  and  proclaim  it  the  only  God- 
ordained  social  order. 

I  have  thus  met  the  attacks  and  answered  the  argu- 
ments of  my  opponent  as  fully  and  frankly  as  I  could. 
But  there  still  remains  one  phase  of  the  subject,  upon 


210  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

which  Dr.  Ryan  has  scarcely  touched  and  which  to  my 
mind  is  vastly  more  important  for  a  proper  evaluation 
of  the  Socialist  attitude  toward  religion  than  all  the 
points  heretofore  discussed.  I  mean  the  religious  tolera- 
tion of  the  organized  Socialist  movement  and  the  prob- 
able effect  of  the  Socialist  order  on  religious  liberty. 
For,  after  all,  the  private  religious  beliefs  of  individual 
Socialists  are  of  no  greater  importance  or  significance 
than  those  of  any  other  persons.  The  agnostic,  the  man 
of  philosophic  religious  beliefs,  and  the  orthodox  Catholic 
face  each  other  with  different  and  conflicting  views. 
Who  is  right  and  who  is  wrong  ? 

My  beliefs  differ  from  those  of  Dr.  Ryan.  I  think  I 
am  right.  Dr.  Ryan  is  convinced  that  he  is  right.  The 
absolute  or  relative  truth  of  our  positions  can  only  be 
established  by  a  free  interchange  of  arguments  and  by 
our  respective  ability  to  persuade  the  greatest  number 
of  persons.  Hence  the  important  question  is  not, 
whether  and  what  the  individual  Socialists  believe,  but 
whether  the  Socialist  movement  manifests  an  inclination 
to  interfere  with  religious  organizations  and  propaganda, 
and  whether  the  "Socialist  State"  is  likely  to  suppress  or 
curtail  the  freedom  of  religious  beliefs,  teachings,  and 
practices. 

The  organized  Socialist  movement  has  at  all  times 
actively  and  consistently  defended  the  absolute  freedom 
of  religious  beliefs  and  practices  not  only  within  its  own 
ranks  as  a  matter  of  tactics,  but  within  the  community 
at  large  as  a  matter  of  principle.  The  first  definite  test 
presented  itself  to  the  young  Social-Democracy  of  Ger- 
many, when  the  government  of  the  newly  founded  em- 
pire under  the  reactionary  leadership  of  Prince  Bismarck 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  211 

undertook  to  suppress  the  Catholic  Church.  Three  bills 
were  submitted  to  the  Reichstag.  One  to  limit  the 
freedom  of  expression  from  the  pulpit  (1871) ;  another, 
to  expel  the  Jesuit  order  from  the  country  (1872) ;  and 
the  third,  to  remove  the  education  of  priests  from  the 
Church  (1873).  The  Socialist  deputies  in  the  Reichstag 
and  the  Socialist  press  and  speakers  outside  of  it  fought 
consistently  and  energetically  against  each  and  all  of  the 
measures. 

The  Catholic  Church  is  still  one  of  the  "religious 
communities"  officially  recognized  by  the  German  gov- 
ernment, but  that  does  not  always  protect  it  from  moles- 
tation and  persecution  on  the  part  of  several  constituent 
States  of  the  empire.  In  order  to  put  an  end  to  such 
molestations  and  at  the  same  time  to  preserve  all 
privileges  arising  from  official  state  recognition,  the  Cath- 
olic Church  through  its  representatives  in  the  Reichs- 
tag (the  "party  of  the  Centre")  introduced  the  so-called 
"Toleration  Bill"  in  1900.  The  bill  provided  for  "free- 
dom of  religious  beliefs"  in  general  terms,  but  demanded 
very  specifically  the  entire  independence  of  the  religious 
communities  recognized  by  the  State.  To  this  the  Socialists 
opposed  an  amendment  calling  for  the  absolute  freedom 
of  convictions,  beliefs,  and  religious  practices  for  all 
persons.  In  the  final  vote  the  Catholics  cast  their 
strength  against  the  Socialist  proposal,  while  the  Social- 
ists unanimously  voted  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  measure. 

A  still  more  recent  test  of  the  Socialist  sincerity  in  the 
matter  of  religious  tolerance  presented  itself  toward  the 
close  of  1912,  when  the  German  government  renewed 
its  attack  on  the  Jesuit  order  in  the  shape  of  a  rigid  and 
hostile  interpretation  of  the  anti-Jesuit  laws  of  1872, 


212  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

known  as  the  "  May  laws."  The  attitude  of  the  Social- 
ists on  that  occasion  is  best  told  by  some  of  the  Ameri- 
can Catholic  publications. 

The  Catholic  Telegraph  of  December  12,  1912,  reports : 
"In  the  situation  which  has  arisen  from  the  break  be- 
tween the  government  and  the  Catholic  Centre  over 
the  decision  of  the  Bundesrath  in  a  case  affecting  the 
anti-Jesuit  law,  for  which  Dr.  Spahn,  the  Catholic 
leader,  denounced  the  Imperial  Chancellor  in  the  Reichs- 
tag, the  ministry  has  resorted  to  the  unprecedented 
step  of  inviting  the  Social  Democrats  to  make  common 
cause  against  the  Catholic  Centre,  which  was  formerly 
part  of  the  government  bloc. 

"The  Centre,  with  the  aid  of  the  allied  (sic)  Socialists 
have  200  votes  [the  Socialists  no,  the  Centre  only  about 
90.  —  M.  H.]  or  a  full  majority  of  the  Reichstag,  and 
can  obstruct  the  voting  of  the  supply  bill  and  clog  all 
other  wheels  of  legislation.  .  .  . 

"The  government's  appeal  to  the  Socialists  will  ap- 
parently fall  on  deaf  ears." 

"'It  would  be  a  mesalliance  and  is  not  to  be  dreamed 
of,'  says  Eduard  Bernstein,  the  Socialist  writer  and  one 
of  the  leaders  in  the  Reichstag.  'All  our  traditions  ex- 
clude such  a  combination.'" 

The  Catholic  Tribune  of  the  same  date  informs  its 
readers  that  "a  Socialist  speaker  assured  the  Centre  of 
his  party's  support." 

From  all  of  which  it  follows  not  only  that  the  Social- 
ists are  absolutely  consistent  and  sincere  in  their  profes- 
sion of  religious  tolerance,  but  also  that  the  Catholic 
Church  may  occasionally  find  them  highly  reliable  and 
desirable  political  "allies." 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  213 

The  modern  Socialist  movement  has  thus  demon- 
strated its  broad-minded  religious  tolerance  by  word 
and  deed.  Is  there  any  good  reason  to  apprehend  that 
an  established  Socialist  State  would  be  less  tolerant  or 
that  its  existence  would  be  incompatible  with  the  con- 
tinuance of  religious  practices? 

Socialism,  on  the  one  hand,  demands  the  complete 
separation  of  State  and  Church,  and,  on  the  other,  it 
stands  for  absolute  religious  liberty.  These  two  funda- 
mental principles  determine  the  attitude  which  the 
Socialist  State  must  take  on  religion  and  worship.  It  is 
safe  to  predict  that  a  Socialist  administration  will  confer 
no  special  rights,  privileges,  or  exemptions  on  the 
Church,  nor  will  it  give  it  official  sanction  or  recognition. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  will  not  interfere  in  the  slightest 
degree  with  its  existence,  teachings,  and  practices. 

The  Church  will  thus  be  a  free  and  voluntary  associa- 
tion of  persons  entertaining  similar  religious  beliefs,  and 
will  be  supported  and  maintained  by  the  private  con- 
tributions of  such  persons.  The  extent  of  its  strength 
and  influence  will  depend  entirely  on  the  measure  in 
which  it  satisfies  the  spiritual  requirements  of  the  popu- 
lation. Will  the  Church  stand  that  test?  Will  Chris- 
tianity survive  under  those  conditions? 

Dr.  Ryan  asserts  that  in  the  conception  of  the  Marxian 
Socialist  "Christianity  will  go  out  of  existence  with  the 
downfall  of  capitalism  and  private  property."  This 
prediction  may  be  quite  plausible  from  the  point  of  view 
of  those  who  consider  Christianity  as  a  mere  "bulwark 
of  the  capitalist  class."  But  surely  the  forecast  cannot 
be  accepted  by  true  believers,  who  hold  that  Christianity 
is  an  independent  and  absolute  force  capable  of  surviving 


214  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

all  political  and  economic  changes.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  reason  why  a  good  Catholic  should  have  any  mis- 
givings about  the  fate  of  Christianity  under  a  Socialist 
regime  —  unless  his  faith  is  not  as  strong  as  it  might  be. 

Dr.  Ryan  concludes  his  able  article  with  what  he  terms 
an  "entirely  reasonable"  proposition  to  the  Socialist 
movement.  The  proposition  is  indeed  quite  "elemen- 
tary in  its  simplicity."  All  my  opponent  requests  is 
that  the  Socialists  forswear  all  views  contrary  to  the 
"traditional"  teachings  of  morals  and  religion;  that 
they  abandon  the  doctrines  of  Marxian  philosophy  and  a 
substantial  part  of  their  practical  programme.  In  return 
for  these  slight  concessions  he  holds  out  the  promise,  or 
rather  prospect,  that  "religious  opposition  to  Socialism 
will  probably  cease." 

I  regret  my  inability  to  accept  the  friendly  invitation 
on  behalf  of  the  Socialist  movement.  Socialism  has 
succeeded  exceedingly  well  with  its  present  philosophy 
and  methods.  Since  the  days  when  the  movement 
ceased  to  represent  a  mere  pious  and  philanthropic  sen- 
timent and  became  a  militant  organization  of  the  work- 
ing-class based  on  the  radical  social  and  economic  phi- 
losophy of  Karl  Marx,  it  has  grown  from  a  handful  of 
dreamers  into  a  potent  international  army  of  many  mil- 
lions, a  modern  social  factor  more  powerful  than  the 
powerful  Catholic  Church.  It  has  grown  in  spite  of 
political  persecution  and  "religious  opposition,"  per- 
haps even  to  a  certain  extent  on  account  of  them.  It 
is  therefore  quite  unlikely  that  the  Socialist  movement 
will  at  this  time  change  its  philosophy  and  tactics  to 
suit  my  amiable  opponent. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  215 

But  if  suggestions  are  in  order,  I  may  in  my  turn 
offer  one  to  Dr.  Ryan,  which  is  likewise  "elemental  in  its 
simplicity  " :  — 

Let  the  Catholic  Church  dissolve  its  un-Christian 
partnership  with  the  rich  and  powerful  of  this  world ; 
let  it  abandon  its  persistent  opposition  to  all  organized 
efforts  of  the  poor  for  social  and  economic  betterment ; 
let  it  cease  to  interfere  with  political  and  class  struggles, 
to  which  it  is  not  a  party  and  on  which  it  is  not  com- 
petent to  speak ;  let  it  cast  aside  its  pomp  and  splendour, 
its  mundane  ambitions  and  greed  for  power ;  let  it  return 
to  the  spirit  and  practices  of  the  lowly  Nazarene ;  in  a 
word,  let  it  limit  itself  to  its  legitimate  functions  within 
the  spiritual  sphere  of  life,  and  I  can  assure  Dr.  Ryan  in 
positive  terms  that  when  this  has  been  done,  all  an- 
tagonism between  the  Socialist  movement  and  the  Church 
will  cease  forever. 

III.  REJOINDER 

BY  DR.   RYAN 

In  his  reply  to  my  main  article,  Mr.  Hillquit  com- 
plains that  I  "go  behind  the  record"  of  the  Socialist 
platforms  in  order  to  get  the  attitude  of  the  movement 
toward  religion.  Yet  he  does  that  very  thing  himself. 
Of  the  three  writers  whom  he  cites  in  his  vain  effort  to 
show  that  "the  party  declarations  mean  precisely  what 
they  say,"  one,  Kautsky,  is  a  rather  unfortunate  selec- 
tion. My  opponent  has  omitted  an  important  qualify- 
ing sentence  which  intervened  between  the  two  that  he 
quotes  from  Kautsky ;  stranger  still,  he  has  neglected  to 
inform  us  that,  in  the  second  edition  of  the  pamphlet 


2l6  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

from  which  the  quotation  is  taken,  the  great  German 
Socialist  corrected  his  statement  thus : 1  — 

"As  many  letters  addressed  to  me  have  shown  that 
this  sentence  has  been  misunderstood,  I  do  not  think  it 
out  of  place  to  remark  that  I  do  not  view  as  possible  the 
union  of  Christianity  with  Social  Democracy  as  a  political 
party  in  the  sense  that  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  a  full 
understanding  of  Socialism  from  the  standpoint  of  Chris- 
tianity. .  .  .  The  acceptance  of  a  personal  God  (and 
an  impersonal  God  is  a  meaningless  word)  and  of  per- 
sonal immortality  is  incompatible  with  the  present  stage 
of  scientific  knowledge  in  general,  of  which  scientific 
Socialism  is  a  part  which  cannot  be  severed  from  the 
whole." 

The  other  two  authors,  Pannekoek  and  Liebknecht, 
do  assert  that  religion  is  not  among  the  concerns  of 
Socialism.  But  how  can  we  know  whether  they  are 
not  moved  by  purely  "tactical"  considerations,  quite  as 
Arthur  Morrow  Lewis  and  other  delegates  to  the  Chicago 
convention  of  1908  finally  voted  for  the  religious-neu- 
trality plank,  although  they  had  in  the  course  of  the 
debate  denounced  it  as  a  lie  ? 

At  any  rate,  Mr.  Hillquit's  "abundant  testimony" 
comes  from  only  two  persons,  while  the  contrary  expres- 
sions that  I  have  cited  represent  more  than  a  dozen 
authorities.  Mr.  Hillquit,  indeed,  calls  these  expressions 
"fragmentary  utterances,"  but  he  probably  will  not 
deny  that  they  reflect  adequately  the  mind  of  their 
authors.  Any  reader  who  may  be  disposed  to  question 
their  value  should  consult  the  contexts  from  which  they 
have  been  taken. 
1  See  "The  Larger  Aspects  of  Socialism,"  by  W.  E.  Walling,  p.  389. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  217 

My  opponent  introduces  an  elaborate  but  wholly  un- 
necessary discussion  of  the  different  meanings  of  religion 
and  its  cognate  terms,  Christianity  and  Church.  I 
never  denied  that  the  Socialist  philosophy  is  compatible 
with  what  he  calls  "idealistic  religion,"  which  may  mean 
merely  "an  ethical  principle,"  "a  philosophical  system," 
or  even  "Socialism  itself"  !  Throughout  the  discussion 
I  have,  quite  obviously,  employed  the  term  religion 
in  its  ordinary  and  easily  understood  sense:  belief  in 
and  submission  to  a  personal  God,  the  Creator  and  Moral 
Ruler  of  the  Universe.  To  religion  in  this  proper  ac- 
ceptation, and  not  in  the  sense  of  some  colourless  ideal,  I 
have  maintained,  and  still  maintain,  that  the  Socialist 
movement  is  antagonistic. 

The  two  paragraphs  which  my  opponent  quotes  from 
a  book  by  the  Reverend  J.  A.  Dewe,  to  prove  that  this 
excellent  and  able  priest  does  not  find  the  theory  of 
economic  determinism  incompatible  with  his  Christian 
beliefs,  are  not  at  all  to  the  point.  Father  Dewe  merely 
says  that  economic  factors  exercise  "almost  unbounded 
influence  on  human  conduct,"  and  have  been  "the  most 
constant  and  most  pervasive  causes"  of  events  in  the 
particular  field  of  politics.  Neither  of  these  statements 
is  equivalent  to  the  assertion  that  economic  factors  ulti- 
mately determine  all  social  conduct,  conditions,  institu- 
tions, and  beliefs,  or  that  such  non-economic  factors 
as  religion,  ethics,  law,  etc.,  are  merely  derived  and 
instrumental  causes  of  social  events  and  changes.  This 
is  economic  determinism  as  described  by  my  opponent 
in  his  paper  on  Socialist  Philosophy.  This,  and  nothing 
less  than  this,  is  economic  determinism  as  understood 
by  orthodox  Socialists. 


2l8  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Father  Dewe  does  not  deny  the  original  and  inde- 
pendent activity  and  causality  of  religious  and  ethical 
factors,  nor  the  existence  of  the  distinct  spiritual  entity 
called  the  soul.  Therefore,  he  is  not  correctly  classed 
as  a  believer  in  the  Socialist  theory  of  economic  deter- 
minism. Indeed,  if  allowance  be  made  for  his  some- 
what imprecise  and  hyperbolic  language,  his  view  of 
economic  causality  does  not  differ  substantially  from 
mine,  as  stated  more  than  once  in  the  last  two  chapters. 
Yet  my  opponent  has  not  honoured  me  with  a  place 
among  the  adherents  of  economic  determinism. 

After  all,  it  seems  that  Mr.  Hillquit  has  been  merely 
exercising  his  dialectic  skill  and  indulging  his  sense  of 
humour;  for  he  immediately  faces  about,  and  admits 
substantially  that  my  position  is  correct.  Here  are  his 
own  words:  "Still  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
majority  of  Socialists  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  reconcile  their  general  philosophic  views  with  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  dogmatic  religious  creeds." 
In  the  interest  of  strict  accuracy,  I  should  like  to  amend 
this  sentence  by  introducing  the  word  "vast"  before  the 
word  "majority." 

According  to  my  opponent,  the  irreligion  of  the 
Socialist  is  not  greater  than  that  of  the  person  who 
"accepts  the  conclusions  of  modern  science";  conse- 
quently, it  is  not  due  specifically  to  the  Marxian  philos- 
ophy. 

I  repeat  that  genuine  science  is  not  in  opposition  to 
religion,  to  orthodox,  dogmatic  religion.  By  science  I 
mean  the  group  of  natural,  empirical  disciplines,  such  as 
chemistry,  biology,  physics,  physiology,  experimental 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  219 

psychology,  astronomy,  geology.  When  we  inquire 
whether  science,  thus  understood,  is  consistent  with 
religion,  we  may  have  in  mind  either  the  principles  and 
conclusions  of  science,  or  the  religious  attitude  of  the 
scientists. 

Inasmuch  as  science  deals  only  with  those  facts  that 
come  under  the  observation  of  the  senses,  and  with  the 
uniformities  or  laws  which  are  disclosed  by  such  obser- 
vation, it  cannot  as  such  know  anything  of  or  assume  any 
attitude  toward  ultimate  causes  or  suprasensible  reali- 
ties. The  latter  lie  entirely  beyond  the  field  of  science, 
and  constitute  the  province  of  philosophy  and  theology. 
From  the  very  nature  of  the  situation  it  is  evident  that 
there  can  be  no  conflict  between  religion  and  science 
objectively  considered. 

Nevertheless  some  scientists  have  gone  beyond  their 
proper  field,  and  have  attempted  to  interpret  as  philoso- 
phers the  ultimate  meaning  of  the  phenomena  that  they 
have  observed  and  the  laws  that  they  have  formulated. 
They  have  speculated  about  God  and  immortality. 
Have  their  opinions  on  these  ultra-scientific  problems 
tended  to  support  the  assertion  or  assumption  that  the 
scientists  are  irreligious? 

The  great  majority  of  the  ablest  and  most  authorita- 
tive men  of  science  have  found  no  inconsistency  between 
their  scientific  opinions  and  the  principles  of  orthodox 
religion.  Copernicus,  Galileo,  Newton,  Galvani,  Volta, 
Ampere,  Cuvier,  Pasteur,  Herschell,  Maxwell,  Dana, 
Lessen,  Mendel,  Saint-Hilaire,  Romanes,  Kelvin,  Vir- 
chow,  Wallace,  Wundt,  Lodge,  and  a  host  of  others, 
were  or  are  believers  in  God  and  hi  the  theistic  inter- 
pretation of  the  universe.  Among  scientists  of  the  first 


220  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

rank,  that  is,  the  men  who  have  made  important  dis- 
coveries and  enlarged  the  bounds  of  human  knowledge, 
the  deniers  of  God  constitute  an  extremely  small  minority. 
Mr.  Hillquit  will  find  these  statements  supported  by  a 
great  mass  of  positive  and  detailed  evidence  in  a  book 
recently  published  in  London,  entitled  "Religious  Belief 
of  Scientists,"  by  Arthur  H.  Tabrun. 

To  be  sure,  the  popularizers  of  science,  the  men  who 
have  themselves  investigated  little  and  discovered  noth- 
ing, have  been  in  a  considerable  proportion  unbelievers. 
Hence  they  have  contrived  to  create  the  impression  in 
the  superficial  and  uncritical  part  of  the  reading  public 
that  religion  and  science  are  mutually  opposed.  But 
they  are  not  scientists,  nor  are  their  irreligious  specula- 
tions within  the  field  of  science. 

Had  my  opponent  merely  declared  that  Socialist  irre- 
ligion  was  due  in  great  part  to  the  general  irreligion  and 
scepticism  of  the  last  century  and  a  half,  he  would  have 
been  on  safe  ground.  A  very  large  proportion  of  So- 
cialists had  adopted  the  views  of  the  atheistic  popu- 
larizers of  science,  and  the  opinions  of  other  sceptical 
writers,  before  they  became  Socialists.  Once  within  the 
movement,  however,  they  found  their  previously  acquired 
irreligion  quite  in  harmony  with  Socialist  philosophy. 
Hence  the  latter  constitutes  the  main  reason  why  the 
average  Socialist  cannot  be  other  than  an  agnostic  or 
an  atheist,  so  long  as  he  remains  in  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. 

Mr.  Hillquit  admits  that  the  relations  between  the 
average  Socialist  and  the  Church  are  "rather  strained," 
but  puts  the  blame  for  this  entirely  upon  the  latter.  In 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  221 

the  attempt  to  substantiate  this  contention,  he  pro- 
nounces a  somewhat  lengthy  and  virulent  tirade  against 
the  Church. 

I  shall  refrain  from  a  formal  reply.  First,  because  the 
explanation  of  Socialist  antagonism  to  the  Church  is 
sufficiently  obvious  in  Socialist  antagonism  to  religion. 
There  is  no  need  to  look  for  an  additional  cause.  Second, 
because  Mr.  Hillquit  correctly  stated  the  policy  upon 
which  we  had  agreed  when  he  declared  in  his  first  paper 
that  "the  Catholic  Church  is  not  at  issue  in  this  debate." 
Third,  because  the  space  at  my  disposal  is  insufficient 
for  an  adequate  reply  to  a  series  of  assertions  which 
cover  nineteen  centuries  of  history.  Fourth,  because 
such  a  reply  would  be  in  one  sense  useless,  and  in  another 
sense  superfluous.  It  would  be  useless  as  addressed  to 
prejudiced  persons,  and  to  all  persons  who  are  satisfied 
with  aprioristic  history.  It  would  be  superfluous  in  the 
eyes  of  all  those  readers  who  try  to  get  their  historical 
views  exclusively  from  a  study  of  facts;  for  these  will 
realize  that  of  the  thirty-five  sentences  in  my  opponent's 
attack,  twenty-one  are  the  direct  reverse  of  the  truth, 
twelve  are  a  caricature  of  the  truth,  and  only  two  are 
unadulterated  truth. 

The  instances  which  Mr.  Hillquit  cites  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  German  parliament  prove  nothing  more 
than  that  the  Socialist  party  defended  freedom  of  asso- 
ciation in  Germany.  This  was  elementary  prudence  in  a 
country  in  which  their  own  associational  liberty  was  con- 
stantly endangered  by  the  government.  It  proves  noth- 
ing with  regard  to  the  general  attitude  of  the  Socialist 
movement  toward  adequate  and  genuine  religious  free- 


222  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

dom  and  religious  toleration.  "Separation  of  Church 
and  State"  and  "absolute  religious  liberty"  are  beautiful 
shibboleths,  but  we  desire  to  know  just  how  they  are 
interpreted  by  the  Socialists  before  we  accept  them  as 
guarantees  of  fundamental  religious  rights. 

We  know  that  they  have  been  interpreted  hi  the 
"Erfurt  Programme"  as  excluding  the  right  to  main- 
tain religious  private  schools.1  We  know  that  they  were 
interpreted  by  the  Socialist  groups  in  the  French  parlia- 
ment as  permitting  militant  assistance  to  the  govern- 
ment in  its  work  of  despoiling  the  Church,  driving  out 
the  religious  congregations,  and  attempting  to  enslave 
the  Church  by  the  odious  "law  of  associations."  We 
know  that  there  is  not  a  country  on  the  Continent  in 
whose  parliament  the  Socialists  have  shown  themselves 
willing  to  allow  the  Church  that  measure  of  religious 
freedom  which  she  enjoys  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Hillquit  is  quite  right  in  assuming  that  good 
Catholics  have  no  "misgivings  about  the  fate  of  Chris- 
tianity under  a  Socialist  regime."  Christianity  has 
survived  much  greater  perils.  However,  that  is  no 
reason  for  being  indifferent  to  Socialism.  All  good 
Americans  know  that  we  could  subdue  Mexico,  but 
sensible  Americans  do  not  contemplate  with  compla- 
cency the  prospect  of  a  war  with  that  country. 

After  all,  the  probable  attitude  of  a  Socialist  regime 
toward  religion  and  religious  liberty  is  a  question  of 
quite  minor  importance.  No  such  regime  is  going  to 

1  See  Liebknecht's  statements  to  this  effect  in  the  very  paragraph 
in  which  he  declares  that  Socialism  is  not  concerned  with  religion :  "So- 
cialism :  What  It  Is  and  What  It  Seeks  to  Accomplish,"  p.  58. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  223 

be  set  up  by  any  enlightened  nation.  What  is  of  serious 
consequence  is  the  fact  that  the  Socialist  movement  of 
to-day  is  an  active  and  far-reaching  influence  for  the 
spread  of  irreligion  among  large  sections  of  the  popula- 
tion in  many  countries. 

This  is  the  phase  of  the  situation  which  gives  genuine 
concern  to  all  friends  of  religion. 

When  I  suggested  that  Socialism  purge  itself  of  its 
non-economic  elements,  I  had  no  idea  that  the  plan  would 
prove  acceptable  to  my  opponent.  My  only  object  in 
offering  it  was  to  demonstrate  the  bad  faith  or  the  gross 
ignorance  of  those  members  of  the  party  who  assert 
that  Socialism  is  a  "purely  economic  system."  Since 
Mr.  Hillquit  refuses  to  countenance  the  elimination  of  a 
single  one  of  the  philosophical,  ethical,  or  religious  doc- 
trines and  implications  of  the  movement,  he  cannot 
reasonably  expect  a  discontinuance  of  opposition  from 
the  Church.  The  doctrines  in  question  do  not  lose  their 
pestiferous  character  merely  because  they  are  propagated 
in  connection  with  Socialism. 

Obviously  the  Church  cannot  accept  the  "counter 
suggestion"  made  by  my  opponent  at  the  close  of  his 
paper.  In  the  first  place,  she  cannot  recede  from  posi- 
tions which  she  does  not  occupy,  such  as  "partnership 
with  the  rich,"  and  opposition  to  social  betterment. 
In  the  second  place,  the  defence  of  religion  and  morality 
against  attacks  made  under  the  guise  of  "political  and 
class  struggles"  is  a  very  important  part  of  her  legiti- 
mate spiritual  functions. 

From  Mr.  Hillquit's  own  pages,  then,  it  is  abundantly 
clear  that  Socialism  and  Christianity  are  irreconcilable. 


224  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

In  the  name  of  truth  and  honesty,  I  thank  him  for  his 
service. 

About  the  outcome  of  this  irrepressible  conflict,  the 
Christian,  at  least  the  Catholic  Christian,  has  no  mis- 
givings. If  I  may  be  pardoned  for  adapting  the 
hackneyed  forecast  of  Macaulay,  I  would  say  that  the 
Church  will  still  be  flourishing  when  the  last  unregenerate 
Marxian  shall  lift  his  melancholy  countenance  from  the 
dry  and  dusty  volumes  of  "Das  Kapital"  to  survey  the 
wreck  of  the  "dialectic  method,"  "economic  determin- 
ism," the  "class  struggle,"  "surplus  value,"  and  all 
the  other  stage  properties  of  the  tragedy-comedy  called 
Socialism. 

IV.  SURREJOINDER 

BY  MR.   HILLQUIT 

On  one  important  point,  at  least,  my  opponent  and 
I  seem  to  be  in  perfect  accord.  We  agree  that  there  is 
little  likelihood  of  a  hearty  understanding  and  active 
cooperation  between  the  Socialist  movement  and  the 
Catholic  Church  so  long  as  both  remain  what  they  are. 
And  this  is  practically  all  that  Karl  Kautsky  says  in  the 
passage  which  I  "neglected"  to  quote  in  my  main 
article,  and  which  my  opponent  has  so  triumphantly 
resuscitated  in  his  rejoinder. 

Dr.  Ryan's  efforts  to  explain  away  Father  Dewe's 
views  on  the  laws  of  historical  development  seem  to  me 
as  unnecessary  as  they  are  unsuccessful.  The  distin- 
guished Catholic  divine  accepts  the  theory  of  economic 
determinism  without  reserve  or  quibble,  and  says  so  as 
clearly  and  plainly  as  the  English  language  can  make  it. 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  225 

Moreover,  Dr.  Dewe  is  more  consistent  in  the  accept- 
ance of  the  theory  than  Dr.  Ryan  is  in  his  opposition 
to  it. 

For,  after  all,  why  should  a  good  Catholic  consider 
the  belief  in  economic  determinism  incompatible  with 
the  orthodox  creed  of  his  church  ?  In  the  preceding 
chapter  Dr.  Ryan  contended  with  much  emphasis 
that  the  moral  laws  are  "the  rules  of  conduct  which 
God  necessarily  lays  down  for  the  guidance  of  beings 
whom  He  has  made  after  the  human  pattern,  just 
as  physical  laws  are  the  rules  by  which  He  directs  the 
non-rational  universe."  In  other  words,  my  opponent's 
contention  is  that  God  does  not  rule  the  universe  from 
day  to  day  by  direct,  arbitrary,  and  changing  methods, 
but  that  He  has  laid  down  certain  permanent  and  im- 
mutable rules  which  govern  life  and  existence  and  which, 
when  discovered,  constitute  the  "laws"  of  science.  If 
this  theory  be  true,  why  does  it  exclude  a  divinely 
ordained  and  universally  valid  rule  of  social  and  historic 
development  ? 

If  the  law  of  gravitation,  discovered  by  Newton,  is 
the  rule  by  which  God  directs  the  movements  of  the 
planets,  and  the  process  of  natural  selection,  discovered 
by  Darwin,  is  the  rule  by  which  He  directs  biological 
development,  why  may  not  the  law  of  economic  deter- 
minism, discovered  by  Marx,  be  the  rule  by  which  He 
directs  the  course  of  social  progress?  If  the  purely 
mechanical  conceptions  of  the  operation  of  gravitation 
and  natural  selection  leave  room  for  the  belief  in  a  per- 
sonal Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  universe,  why  not  the 
theory  of  economic  determinism?  It  seems  to  me  the 
distinction  is  quite  arbitrary  and  illogical. 
Q 


226  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

Nor  is  my  opponent  happier  in  the  selection  of  his 
arguments  to  support  the  alleged  harmony  between 
modern  science  and  dogmatic  theology. 

Dr.  Ryan  names  twenty  illustrious  men  of  science, 
beginning  with  Copernicus  and  Galileo  and  ending  with 
Wallace,  Wundt,  and  Lodge,  and  claims  that  they 
"have  found  no  inconsistency  between  their  scientific 
opinions  and  the  principles  of  orthodox  religion."  My 
opponent  would  find  it  a  somewhat  difficult  task  to  prove 
that  the  religious  opinions  of  any  considerable  number 
of  the  men  named  by  him  were  "orthodox"  within  his 
own  definition  of  that  term.  But  assuming  that  they 
were,  the  fact  would  prove  as  little  in  favour  of  Dr. 
Ryan's  contention  as  a  list  of  irreligious  scientists  would 
disprove  it.  The  method  of  drawing  general  conclu- 
sions from  specific  instances  often  leads  to  curious 
results. 

Take  the  case  of  Alfred  Russel  Wallace.  He  was  an 
eminent  scientist  and  a  believer  in  God.  Dr.  Ryan 
therefore  considers  his  case  one  of  those  that  go  to  prove 
the  alleged  harmony  between  science  and  religion.  But 
Wallace  was  also  an  outspoken  and  enthusiastic  Socialist. 
Would  my  opponent  consider  this  fact  as  tending  to 
prove  that  Socialism  is  both  scientific  and  religious  ? 

But  the  more  serious  flaw  in  the  argument  lies  in  its 
utter  one-sidedness.  To  establish  the  alleged  harmony 
between  science  and  orthodox  belief,  it  is  not  enough  to 
show  the  inclinations  of  men  of  science  toward  religion ; 
it  is  also  necessary  to  prove  a  friendly  attitude  of  the 
Church  toward  scientific  truths  and  their  discoverers 
and  exponents.  It  takes  two  to  make  an  agreement. 

And  here  is  where  my  opponent's  difficulty  becomes 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  227 

unsurmountable.  The  history  of  the  Church  is  one  of 
undying  hostility  to,  and  relentless  persecution  of  all 
scientific  progress. 

Nicholas  Copernicus,  who  heads  Dr.  Ryan's  list  of 
religious  scientists,  made  the  great  discovery  that  the 
earth  revolves  about  the  sun,  in  the  early  years  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  Yet  his  fear  of  theological  persecu- 
tion was  so  strong  that  for  more  than  thirty  years  he 
did  not  dare  to  publish  his  discovery.  His  work  on 
"The  Revolutions  of  the  Heavenly  Bodies"  was  printed 
in  1543,  and  a  copy  of  the  book  was  put  into  the  hands 
of  the  great  scientist  as  he  lay  on  his  deathbed.  That 
the  fears  of  Copernicus  were  well  founded  was  amply 
demonstrated  by  subsequent  events. 

The  first  great  popularizer  of  the  Copernican  system, 
the  original  thinker  and  philosopher,  Giordano  Bruno, 
was  held  in  prison  by  the  Roman  inquisition  for  two 
years,  and  was  burned  at  the  stake  as  a  heretic  in  1600. 
Galileo  Galilei,  one  of  the  most  powerful  minds  of  his 
time,  who  corroborated  and  perfected  the  discovery  of 
Copernicus  by  telescopic  observations,  was  harassed  by 
clerical  opposition  in  all  his  works.  Twice  he  was  sum- 
moned before  the  tribunal  of  the  Roman  inquisition, 
and  in  his  seventieth  year  the  feeble  and  broken-down 
savant,  under  threats  of  inquisitorial  tortures,  was  forced 
upon  his  knees  to  publicly  "abjure,  curse,  and  detest 
the  heresy  of  the  movement  of  the  earth."  Nor  did  the 
persecution  of  Galileo  end  with  his  death.  The  clergy 
did  not  permit  his  body  to  be  buried  in  his  family  tomb 
or  a  monument  to  be  erected  in  his  memory.  In  1616 
the  Church  prohibited  "  all  books  which  affirm  the  motion 
of  the  earth." 


228  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

The  works  of  Kepler,  Descartes,  Newton,  and  Saint- 
Hilaire  were  viciously  attacked  by  the  Church,  and  as 
late  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  great 
French  naturalist,  George  Buffon,  who  was  the  first  to 
lay  a  scientific  foundation  for  modern  geology,  was  com- 
pelled by  the  theological  faculty  of  the  Sorbonne  to 
recant:  "I  abandon  everything  in  my  book  respecting 
the  formation  of  the  earth,  and  generally  all  which  may 
be  contrary  to  the  narrative  of  Moses." 

When  the  epoch-making  discoveries  of  Darwin  were 
published  they  shared  the  fate  of  all  earlier  scientific 
achievements.  Cardinal  Manning  voiced  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Catholic  Church  when  he  characterized 
Darwinism  as  a  "brutal  philosophy,  to  wit,  there  is  no 
God,  and  the  ape  is  our  Adam,"  just  as  Bishop  Wilber- 
force  spoke  for  the  Protestant  Church  when  he  rejected 
the  new  theory  as  a  "tendency  to  limit  God's  glory  in 
creation."  Pope  Pius  IX  emphatically  condemned  the 
Darwinian  theory  as  a  heretic  "aberration." 

When  the  compelling  force  of  scientific  truth  ulti- 
mately broke  down  the  thick  walls  of  clerical  opposition 
and  the  new  discoveries  established  themselves  definitely 
and  ineradicably  in  the  minds  of  men,  the  Church  had 
to  abandon  the  Canutian  task  of  forcing  the  rising  tide 
back  into  the  river  in  each  instance.  In  1757  the  decree 
"against  the  motion  of  the  earth"  was  formally  annulled 
by  the  papal  court,  and  to-day  even  Darwinism  is 
freed  from  the  ban  of  the  Church. 

But  the  Church  learns  nothing  from  the  past,  and 
continues  to  meet  every  new  advance  in  science  with 
stern  rebuke.  If  it  is  no  more  the  "infidel"  Copernican 
or  Darwinian  against  whom  it  is  arrayed,  it  is  the 


SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION  2 29 

"agnostic"  and  "materialistic"  Marxian  who  is  made 
the  target  of  its  attacks. 

Dr.  Ryan  concludes  his  rejoinder  with  a  clever  para- 
phrase of  a  passage  from  Macaulay  in  which  he  predicts 
the  triumphal  survival  of  the  Church  and  the  speedy 
oblivion  of  the  heresies  of  the  Marxian  philosophy. 
Such  pious  forecasts  were  made  by  my  opponent's  pred- 
ecessors with  reference  to  the  heliocentric  theory  in  the 
days  of  Copernicus,  Bruno,  and  Galileo,  and  with  refer- 
ence to  the  theory  of  natural  selection  in  the  days  of 
Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Wallace.  What  assurance  does 
he  have  that  his  joyous  predictions  about  the  fate  of 
Marxian  Socialism  will  be  treated  with  greater  respect 
by  history,  the  court  of  last  resort  of  all  theories  and 
movements  ? 


CHAPTER  VII 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 
BY  MORRIS   HILLQUIT 

THE  main  points  of  the  debate  between  Dr.  Ryan  and 
myself  have  been  fully  disposed  of  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters, and  it  would  be  quite  unprofitable  to  reopen  the 
discussion  at  this  time.  Our  present  task,  as  I  see  it, 
is  merely  to  gather  up  some  of  the  loose  ends  and  to 
draw  our  conclusions. 

Dr.  Ryan  has  proved  himself  an  opponent  of  excep- 
tional erudition  and  skill,  and  I  take  great  pleasure  in 
expressing  my  sincere  appreciation  of  the  fair  and  cour- 
teous manner  in  which  he  has  treated  his  side  of  the  com- 
plex and  contentious  subject. 

But  in  looking  over  the  preceding  pages  I  cannot  help 
feeling  that  the  erudition  and  broad-minded  attitude 
of  my  opponent  have  been  the  main  source  of  his  weak- 
ness. In  a  debate  against  Socialism  the  conservative 
standpatter  is  placed  in  a  position  of  advantage  over  the 
liberal  critic.  He  stubbornly  shuts  his  eyes  to  the  con- 
ditions and  tendencies  of  life  around  him;  he  stoutly 
maintains  that  everything  is  perfect  in  this,  the  best  of 
all  worlds,  and  that  the  call  for  change  and  improvement 
is  nothing  but  the  senseless  cry  of  the  demagogue.  He 
flies  in  the  face  of  all  known  facts ;  he  is  brutal  and  ab- 
surd, but  he  is  always  logical  from  his  premises.  The 

230 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  231 

non-Socialist  progressive,  on  the  other  hand,  is  more 
plausible,  but  less  consistent.  He  is  bound  to  make 
concessions;  he  is  bound  to  stop  short  of  a  complete 
admission,  and  he  struggles  vainly  for  a  logical  halting- 
place. 
It  was  thus  with  my  opponent. 

THE  EVILS 

To  my  indictment  of  the  prevailing  industrial  order, 
Dr.  Ryan  makes  only  a  partial  and  half-hearted  de- 
fence. He  admits  that  the  present  industrial  system 
is  "in  many  of  its  elements  far,  very  far,  from  satisfac- 
tory or  tolerable " ; J  that  modern  society  has  failed 
"to  take  advantage  of  the  available  forces  of  improve- 
ment"; that  "the  position  and  livelihood  of  large  sec- 
tions of  the  working  population  are  less  secure  under  the 
existing  arrangements"  than  in  the  past;  that  it  is 
"largely  true"  that  the  present  economic  order  pits 
producer  against  consumer,  tenant  against  landlord, 
and  worker  against  employer,  and  that  our  social  order 
suffers  from  many  other  serious  defects. 

The  only  fault  he  finds  with  the  formulation  of  my 
charges  against  present  society  is  that  they  are  "over- 
stated." He  contends  that  conditions  are  not  "nearly 
so  terrible"  as  they  appear  to  me.  Now  it  is  of  no  con- 
sequence whether  the  admitted  evil  outgrowths  of  Cap- 
italism are  quite  as  "terrible"  as  they  appear  to  me  or 
merely  "unsatisfactory  and  intolerable  "  as  they  seem  to 
my  opponent.  Our  individual  feeling  toward  social 
misery  counts  for  little.  The  all-important  fact  is  that 

1  The  italics  are  mine. 


232  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

it  exists,  and  the  inevitable  conclusion  is  that  it  must  be 
eradicated. 

Dr.  Ryan  admits  the  fact  and  accepts  the  conclusion. 

"That  the  majority  of  the  wage-earners  should,  in  a 
country  as  rich  as  America,  possess  no  income-bearing 
property,  have  no  ownership  in  the  means  of  production, 
is  a  gross  anomaly,"  he  exclaims.  "It  is  not  normal, 
and  it  cannot  be  permanent.  No  nation  can  endure 
as  a  nation  predominantly  of  hired  men." 

My  opponent  urges  that  the  existing  social  system  be 
"greatly,  even  radically,  amended."  So,  of  course,  do 
the  Socialists. 

The  ultimate  remedy  of  Socialism  is  the  abrogation  of 
private  ownership  in  the  social  tools  of  work.  The 
Socialists  would  place  the  machinery  of  wealth  produc- 
tion under  the  ownership  and  control  of  the  community, 
to  be  operated  by  the  entire  working  population  for  the 
good  of  society. 

What  is  Dr.  Ryan's  supreme  remedy  ? 

THE  REMEDY 

He  is  not  very  explicit  on  that  point,  but  several  in- 
teresting hints  are  scattered  throughout  his  discussion. 
Thus  he  admits  the  possibility  of  a  situation  which  may 
force  the  government  "to  some  extent"  to  compete 
with  the  capitalists  in  the  production  of  certain  commod- 
ities, particularly  in  the  field  occupied  by  the  trusts. 
He  contemplates  an  industrial  system  characterized  by 
"the  direct  ownership  of  the  greater  part  of  the  instru- 
ments of  production  by  the  workers  themselves  by  such 
methods  as  copartnership  schemes  and  cooperative 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  233 

societies,"  and  he  even  conceives  of  a  stage  in  social 
progress  when  "interest  as  we  now  have  it  will  be  for  the 
most  part  abolished." 

In  the  phrase  "interest  as  we  now  have  it,"  my  oppo- 
nent clearly  intends  to  include  all  forms  of  workless  in- 
come, whether  commonly  designated  as  interest  or  rent 
or  profit.  This  is  a  long  step  toward  the  Socialist  con- 
ception. But  Dr.  Ryan  goes  even  farther  when  he  as- 
serts: "Until  the  majority  of  the  wage-earners  have 
become  owners,  at  least  in  part,  of  the  tools  with  which 
they  work,  the  system  of  private  capital  will  remain 
essentially  unstable." 

The  "system  of  private  capital"  to  which  my  opponent 
alludes  is,  of  course,  the  present  economic  system,  and 
the  expressions  "majority"  and  "at  least  in  part"  oc- 
curring in  the  significant  statement  were  obviously 
inserted  merely  to  palliate  the  force  of  the  admission. 
These  terms  of  limitation  have  no  justification  in  logic 
or  morals.  If  it  is  wrong  to  keep  "the  majority"  of  the 
workers  without  tools,  how  can  it  be  right  to  leave  a 
minority  of  them  in  that  condition  ?  If  ownership  of  the 
tool  is  essential  to  the  work  and  life  of  the  labourer,  why 
"in  part "  and  not  in  whole  ? 

If  this  surplusage  be  eliminated  from  Dr.  Ryan's 
formula,  it  will  read  about  as  follows :  "Until  the  wage- 
earners  have  become  the  owners  of  the  tools  with  which 
they  work,  our  economic  system  will  remain  unstable ;  " 
or,  stating  the  reverse  of  the  proposition :  "Our  eco- 
nomic system  will  be  stable  only  when  the  wage-earners 
become  the  owners  of  the  tools  with  which  they  work"  — 
which  is  good  Socialism. 


234  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

THE  METHODS 

Apparently  realizing  that  his  objections  to  the  ulti- 
mate aims  of  Socialism  are  not  very  cogent,  my  opponent 
concentrates  his  attack  upon  the  methods  of  the  Socialist 
movement.  "The  unrighteous  and  unearned  incomes, 
and  the  insufficient  distribution  of  productive  property 
can  all  be  eliminated  through  measures  of  social  reform," 
he  asserts  in  one  place,  and  again,  more  emphatically : 
"We  shall  reach  it  [Dr.  Ryan's  social  ideal]  not  by  the 
futile  way  of  Socialism,  but  along  the  solid  road  of  social 
reform."  Throughout  the  debate  he  assumes  that 
Socialism  is  antagonistic  to  social  reform,  and  again  and 
again  he  assures  us  that  "  the  present  system  is  capable 
of  improvement." 

It  never  occurred  to  the  Socialists  to  deny  that  the 
present  system  is  capable  of  improvement  and  reform. 
On  the  contrary,  they  contend  that  it  is  badly  in  need  of 
both.  A  "reform"  is  commonly  denned  as  a  change  for 
the  better ;  a  "social  reform  "  is  an  ameliorative  change 
in  social  conditions;  and  a  "radical  social  reform"  is  a 
thoroughgoing  general  change  and  improvement  of 
social  conditions.  In  this  sense  of  the  term  Socialism 
itself  may  be  defined  as  a  movement  for  radical  social 
reform. 

Nor  are  the  Socialists  averse  to  social  reform  in  the 
narrower  meaning  of  the  phrase,  i.e.  as  signifying  meas- 
ures of  immediate  and  partial  improvement.  They  sup- 
port every  measure  calculated  to  better  the  present  con- 
dition of  the  workers,  or  to  promote  social  progress.  But 
they  discriminate  carefully  between  true  progressive 
measures  and  the  numerous  Utopian  and  reactionary 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  235 

nostrums  which  falsely  parade  under  the  name  of  reform. 
Thus  they  refuse  to  wax  enthusiastic  over  the  futile  and 
reactionary  efforts  of  our  government  to  "demolish"  the 
trusts  and  to  restore  the  bygone  days  of  general  compe- 
tition. 

In  this  connection  I  cannot  allow  to  pass  without 
challenge  Dr.  Ryan's  assertion  that  "the  German  Social- 
ists in  the  early  years  of  their  parliamentary  activity 
opposed  some  very  necessary  social  reforms."  In  the 
very  early  period  of  the  German  Socialist  movement  one 
or  two  Socialist  representatives  in  parliament  refused  to 
take  an  active  part  in  the  constructive  work  of  that  body. 
That  policy  was  soon  changed,  and  for  decades  the 
Socialist  deputies  in  the  Reichstag  have  been  among 
its  most  active  and  practical  workers.  At  no  time  did 
they  oppose  any  measure  of  true  social  reform. 

Nor  are  my  opponent's  moral  scruples  against  the  aim 
and  methods  of  Socialism  as  strong  as  some  of  his  ex- 
pressions would  seem  to  indicate.  He  does  not  consider 
the  present  capitalist  system  a  God-ordained  or  final 
order  of  society.  On  the  contrary,  he  admits  frankly 
and  wisely  that  "if  the  day  should  ever  come  when  pri- 
vate control  of  capital  became  detrimental  to  human 
welfare,  the  capitalists  would  no  longer  have  a  right  to 
function  as  such." 

It  is  my  contention  that  the  day  has  fully  come.  Dr. 
Ryan  seems  to  think  that  it  has  not  yet  quite  come. 
The  difference  is  one  of  estimate  and  sentiment,  not  of 
principle. 

And  even  on  the  methods  of  dispossessing  the  capital- 
ist class  "when  the  day  should  come,"  Dr.  Ryan's 
notions  are  at  bottom  not  so  strongly  opposed  to  the 


236  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

accepted  Socialist  views  as  he  seems  to  think.  Says  he : 
"  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  confiscation  is  ever  morally 
legitimate,  for  example,  in  some  supreme  national  crisis 
when  no  other  course  is  physically  possible."  "Physi- 
cally possible,"  is,  of  course,  only  a  figurative  expres- 
sion when  applied  to  non-physical  social  conditions. 
What  Dr.  Ryan  obviously  means  is  that  he  would  sanc- 
tion confiscation  only  if  such  a  grave  measure  were  im- 
peratively required  for  the  welfare  and  self-preservation 
of  the  nation.  Ultimately,  then,  he  also  would  deter- 
mine the  question  on  the  test  of  social  expediency  rather 
than  abstract  individual  "morality." 

But  if  Dr.  Ryan's  arguments  against  Socialism  as  a 
movement  for  economic  reconstruction  are  characterized 
by  concessions,  his  objections  to  Socialism  on  philosophic 
and  religious  grounds  are  often  based  on  misapprehended 
conceptions  of  the  Socialist  programme  and  beliefs. 

SOCIALISM  is  NOT  MATERIALISTIC 

Thus  Dr.  Ryan  takes  it  for  granted  that  Socialism  is 
a  materialistic  philosophy.  He  refers  to  Marx  and 
Engels,  the  founders  of  modern  theoretical  Socialism, 
as  "out-and-out  materialists,"  for  whom  "all  that  exists 
is  matter." 

The  error  has  been  committed  by  many  eminent  critics 
of  Socialism  before  Dr.  Ryan,  and  is  due  in  no  small 
part  to  the  title  originally  chosen  by  Marx  and  Engels 
for  the  designation  of  their  economic  theory  of  historic 
development  —  the  "materialistic  conception  of  history." 
But  that  theory  is  not  even  remotely  related  to  the 
doctrine  of  philosophic  materialism  or  to  any  other  phil- 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  237 

osophic  system.  The  "materialist  conception"  or  "eco- 
nomic interpretation"  of  history  is  a  theory  of  social 
evolution,  and  nothing  else.  It  does  not  attempt  to  deal 
with  the  nature  or  function  of  the  human  mind  or  with 
the  ultimate  questions  of  existence.  Socialism  as  such 
is  neither  materialistic  nor  dualistic.  It  is  not  committed 
to  any  school  of  philosophy  and  still  less  does  it  seek  to 
advance  a  philosophic  system  of  its  own. 

Nor  is  the  philosophy  of  Socialism  tainted  with  the 
element  of  fatalism.  Dr.  Ryan  is  quite  wrong  when  he 
asserts  that  to  the  Socialist  "the  social  evolutionary 
process  seems  to  be  a  huge  and  unrelenting  mechanical 
movement  which  cannot  be  checked  by  any  mere  action 
of  human  beings."  Modern  Socialists  do  not  anticipate 
a  mechanical  collapse  of  the  present  economic  system  and 
the  spontaneous  blossoming  of  a  Socialist  commonwealth 
upon  its  ruins.  When  they  predict  the  "inevitable" 
coming  of  Socialism,  they  have  in  view  a  reasonable 
need,  not  a  blind  categoric  imperative.  They  see  in  the 
Socialist  plan  the  most  logical  solution  of  our  vexing 
social  problems.  They  contend  that  the  workers  would 
benefit  immensely  by  the  introduction  of  a  socialized 
system  of  industry,  and  that  such  a  system  could  be 
realized  if  the  bulk  of  the  workers  consciously  desired 
it,  and  were  organized  for  its  attainment. 

The  workers  as  yet  do  not  fulfil  these  requirements. 
The  Socialists  realize  this  undeniable  fact,  and  they  bend 
every  effort  to  enlighten,  stimulate,  and  organize  them, 
and  to  draw  them  into  the  Socialist  movement.  If  they 
succeed  in  this  task,  their  cause  will  be  won ;  if  they  do 
not,  their  efforts  must  fail.  The  Socialists  expect  to  win 
because  the  economic  and  social  developments  of  modern 


238  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

times  favour  their  propaganda  and  because  they  have 
already  accomplished  a  substantial  part  of  their  task, 
but  principally  because  they  are  thoroughly  convinced 
of  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  their  cause,  and  are  prepared 
to  work  long,  hard,  and  patiently  for  it.  It  is  a  case  of 
determined  resolution  rather  than  blind  fatalism. 

And  as  a  logical  corollary  from  this  statement  it  follows 
that  the  Socialist  expectation  of  success  is  predicated 
not  on  a  theory  of  progressive  pauperization  of  the 
workers,  but  on  the  ever  growing  improvement  of  their 
conditions. 

Dr.  Ryan  seems  to  be  displeased  with  my  statement 
of  this  theory.  He  intimates  that  in  some  way  I  have 
come  by  it  illegitimately,  and  that  if  I  had  a  proper 
sense  of  duty,  I  should  have  adhered  to  the  theory  of  in- 
creasing misery.  In  support  of  his  contention  he  quotes 
a  somewhat  debatable  passage  from  Marx,  written  about 
fifty  years  ago. 

I  respectfully  submit  that  my  opponent  here  goes  be- 
yond his  province.  It  is  no  more  incumbent  on  him  to 
correct  my  Socialism  than  it  would  be  for  me  to  set  him 
straight  on  his  theology.  He  must  accept  the  issue  as 
it  is  tendered  to  him  and  not  change  it  to  suit  his  con- 
venience. Incidentally  it  may  be  noted  that  Marx 
never  held  that  the  condition  of  the  workers  was  one  of 
absolute  and  increasing  misery,  and  never  acted  on  the 
assumption  that  a  general  pauperization  of  the  workers 
must  precede  their  ultimate  emancipation.  In  his  prac- 
tical work  he  always  laid  strong  emphasis  on  the  impor- 
tance of  progressive  improvement  of  the  material  con- 
ditions of  the  working-class. 

Nor  did  Karl  Kautsky,  as  far  as  I  know,  ever  hold  or 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  239 

express  different  views  on  the  subject.  In  the  statement 
quoted  by  my  opponent  in  the  fourth  chapter,  Kautsky 
asserts  that  the  wage- workers  are  growing  faster  in  num- 
ber than  the  other  economic  classes,  but  not  that  they 
are  generally  growing  poorer.  In  this  he  merely  reiter- 
ates the  fundamental  Marxian  view  corroborated  by 
each  periodical  census  in  every  civilized  country.  There 
is  no  conflict  between  that  statement  and  my  views  on 
the  subject. 

SOCIALISM  is  NOT  A  UTOPIA 

Another  serious  error  which  underlies  my  opponent's 
discussion  is  his  obvious  misconstruction  of  the  phrase 
"Socialist  State"  as  used  by  Socialists.  "No  Socialist 
regime  is  going  to  be  'set  up'  by  any  civilized  nation," 
he  assures  us  in  one  place,  and  throughout  the  debate 
he  refers  to  the  so-called  "Socialist  State"  or  "Socialist 
regime"  as  an  entirely  new  and  arbitrary  social  order, 
created  of  nothing  but  fancy  and  imposed  on  mankind 
in  exchange  for  an  old  and  discarded  structure  of  society 
—  something  in  the  nature  of  a  utopia  transplanted  from 
another  planet  or  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  suddenly 
come  to  earth. 

The  Socialists  have  no  such  romantic  conceptions.  To 
them  the  "Socialist  State"  is  nothing  but  a  more  ad- 
vanced phase  of  modern  civilization,  or,  to  borrow  a 
felicitous  expression  from  my  opponent,  "the  existing 
system  radically  amended."  Amended  by  the  elimina- 
tion of  industrial  warfare  and  economic  exploitation  and 
by  a  relative  equalization  in  the  enjoyment  of  wealth 
and  opportunities,  but  still  a  system  of  human  beings  as 


240  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

we  know  them  to-day,  with  all  their  frailty  and  weakness, 
passions  and  ambitions  —  except  with  less  incentive 
and  fewer  opportunities  for  evil  doing. 

The  "Socialist  State,"  thus  understood, cannot  and  will 
not  be  "set  up,"  ready-made  and  full-fledged,  one  fine 
day  in  the  more  or  less  distant  future.  It  has  been 
persistently  filtering  into  the  present  order  during  recent 
decades  by  countless  avenues,  and  it  continues  the  process 
of  permeation  in  an  ever  accelerating  pace.  If  the  liberal 
economists  and  conservative  statesmen  of  a  century 
ago  could  observe  our  present  political  institutions  and 
the  wide  social  and  economic  functions  of  our  govern- 
ment, they  would  probably  pronounce  the  modern  re- 
gime semi-Socialistic,  and,  comparing  present  conditions 
with  the  past,  we  might  be  justified  in  maintaining  that 
we  are  already  living  at  least  in  the  outskirts  of  the 
"Socialist  State." 

The  main  practical  task  of  the  Socialist  movement  is 
to  accelerate  this  process  of  socialization,  to  give  it  in- 
telligent direction,  and  to  shape  it  on  democratic  lines. 

SOCIALISM  is  NOT  FINAL 

And  just  as  the  term  Socialist  State  does  not  convey 
to  the  Socialist  the  notion  of  a  sudden  break,  so  likewise 
does  it  not  imply  the  element  of  finality. 

In  one  place  in  the  debate  Dr.  Ryan,  I  don't  know  on 
what  ground,  accuses  me  of  attempting  to  "set  a  limit 
to  industrial  evolution,  namely,  the  Socialist  State." 
Oddly  enough,  he  takes  me  to  task  in  another  place  for 
lacking  a  fixed,  immutable,  eternal,  and  final  standard 
of  morality. 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  241 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Socialists  do  not  consider  any 
part  of  their  programme  as  final  and  valid  for  all  times. 

When  we  stand  in  the  midst  of  an  unobstructed  plane 
we  see  the  objects  in  front  of  us  only  up  to  the  line  of  the 
horizon.  The  circle  around  which  the  sky  and  the  land 
seem  to  meet  encloses  everything  within  our  view.  It 
is  the  limit  of  our  visible  universe.  But  we  walk  ahead 
and  the  horizon  moves  back.  New  vistas  are  opened  to 
our  eyes.  Our  world  grows  larger  and  ever  larger,  and 
never  can  we  actually  reach  the  seeming  limit  of  our  prog- 
ress. And  so  it  is  with  our  industrial,  social,  ethical,  and 
other  ideals.  They  represent  the  limit  of  our  present 
vision.  So  long  as  they  exist  they  are  our  standards  of 
perfection.  By  our  approach  to  them  we  measure  our 
progress,  and  when  they  are  enlarged  our  demands  on 
human  progress  increase  correspondingly.  To-day  we 
cannot  see  beyond  Socialism,  but  when  the  Socialist 
programme  shall  have  been  substantially  materialized, 
mankind  will  no  doubt  conceive  newer  and  larger  ideals 
and  strive  for  their  attainment. 

THE  CHURCH  AGAIN 

In  the  introductory  chapter  I  expressed  the  hope  that 
our  debate  would  be  held  down  strictly  to  a  discussion  of 
the  merits  or  demerits  of  Socialism  and  would  not  be  al- 
lowed to  turn  into  an  attack  and  defence  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  "The  Socialists  do  not  fight  the  Catholic 
Church,"  I  observed,  "unless  forced  to  do  so  in  self- 
defence." 

The  occasion  for  such  self-defence  arose  when  my  op- 
ponent introduced  the  charge  of  alleged  Socialist  hostility 


242  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

to  the  Church.  I  denied  any  hostility  of  the  Socialist 
movement  toward  the  Church  as  a  religious  institution, 
but  admitted  that  the  majority  of  Socialists  have  little 
confidence  in  the  Church  as  a  social  and  political  organi- 
zation. To  account  for  that  attitude,  I  endeavoured  to 
show  the  aristocratic  and  reactionary  character  of  the 
Church  as  at  present  constituted.  My  opponent  rules 
out  my  charges  somewhat  peremptorily  on  the  ground 
that  they  are  not  within  the  issues.  "I  shall  refrain 
from  a  formal  reply,"  says  he,  "...  because  Mr.  Hill- 
quit  correctly  stated  the  policy  upon  which  we  had  agreed 
when  he  declared  in  his  first  paper  that  the  Catholic 
Church  is  not  an  issue  in  this  debate." 

True,  I  made  that  statement.  But  I  left  the  choice 
of  weapons  in  our  wordy  duel  entirely  to  my  opponent, 
and  I  expressly  warned  him  that  no  matter  into  what 
channels  his  argument  led,  I  should  have  "to  meet  him 
on  his  own  ground."  Dr.  Ryan  was  fully  within  his 
rights  in  introducing  the  subject  of  the  relations  between 
the  Church  and  Socialism,  but  having  done  so  he  cannot 
with  propriety  close  the  discussion  on  the  ground  that 
the  Church  is  not  in  issue.  He  has  made  it  an  issue. 
The  Church  is  not  an  issue  only  in  the  sense  that  it  is 
inherently  irrelevant  to  the  subject  of  our  debate,  but 
not  on  the  ground  that  it  is  above  discussion  or  criticism. 

My  opponent  seems  to  take  the  ground  that  the 
Church  is  of  superhuman  origin  and  that  its  actions  and 
policies  are  entirely  uninfluenced  by  existing  social  con- 
ditions and  struggles.  He  treats  the  attempts  of  Karl 
Kautsky  and  Achille  Loria  to  account  for  the  origin  and 
growth  of  the  Christian  Church  by  economic  factors  as 
preposterous,  and  gravely  asserts  that  all  such  theories 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  243 

are  belied  by  "the  authentic  documents  which  describe 
the  rise  of  Christianity." 

As  a  matter  of  well-known  fact,  there  are  no  authentic 
contemporaneous  documents  bearing  on  the  rise  of 
Christianity.  But  whatever  might  have  been  its  origin 
and  early  history,  it  is  undeniable  that  the  Church  to-day 
is  maintained,  fashioned,  and  directed  by  ordinary  human 
agencies,  i.e.  by  mortals  capable  of  errors  and  subject 
to  material  influences  and  human  weaknesses  and  im- 
perfections. 

The  Church  has  voluntarily  assumed  the  character 
of  a  social  institution.  As  such  it  is  charged  with  certain 
public  functions,  and  in  the  discharge  of  these  functions 
it  owes  to  the  people  an  account  of  its  stewardship. 
Dr.  Ryan,  therefore,  does  not  dispose  of  the  argument 
when  he  endeavours  to  spell  out  from  my  statements  an 
admission  of  antagonism  between  Socialism  and  the 
Church,  and  thanks  me  for  "this  service"  in  the  name 
of  "truth  and  honesty." 

If  an  active  opposition  between  the  Church  and  the 
Socialist  movement  be  assumed,  there  still  remains  the 
vital  question  of  right  and  wrong  between  the  contending 
parties.  Before  the  bar  of  the  nations  the  Church  is  as 
much  on  trial  as  the  Socialist  movement,  and  ultimately 
both  will  be  judged  by  their  effect  upon  the  welfare  and 
progress  of  mankind. 

In  throwing  the  glove  to  the  Socialist  movement  the 
Catholic  Church  has  challenged  an  adversary  of  no  mean 
calibre.  Socialism  is  an  international  power,  as  is  the 
Catholic  Church  itself.  It  represents  not  merely  vast 
masses  of  people,  tens  of  millions,  but  also  a  spiritual  and 
cultural  factor  or  revolutionizing  influence.  The  Social- 


244  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

ist  movement  is  remaking  the  mentality  and  psychology 
of  the  working  population  and  is  giving  to  the  world 
new  ethical  standards  and  social  ideals.  And  it  is  a 
growing  power. 

The  "  numerous  desertions  from  the  organized  Socialist 
movement"  of  which  Dr.  Ryan  speaks,  exist  only  in  the 
imagination  of  the  optimistic  opponents  of  Socialism. 
In  actual  fact  the  history  of  the  movement  presents  one 
steady  and  unbroken  march  of  progress.  Occasional 
setbacks  naturally  occur  at  all  times  and  in  all  places, 
but  they  are  always  more  than  compensated  by  sub- 
sequent gains  or  by  victories  in  other  places.  From  the 
beginnings  of  modern  Socialism  to  this  day,  not  a  year 
has  passed  without  showing  a  solid  and  substantial 
growth  of  the  movement  as  a  whole. 

If  from  this  record  of  steady  Socialist  gains  we  turn 
to  the  standing  modern  complaint  of  most  ministers 
of  the  gospel  about  the  deserted  pews,  and  observe  their 
frantic  and  unavailing  efforts  to  recapture  the  strayed 
flocks,  we  may  here  find  new  and  wholesome  food  for 
reflection  not  only  on  the  attitude  of  Socialism  toward  the 
Church,  but  also  on  that  of  the  Church  to  Socialism  and 
to  all  vital  social  problems  and  movements  which  agitate 
the  minds  of  the  men  and  women  of  this  generation. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS 
BY   JOHN  A.   RYAN,  D.D. 

BEFORE  summing  up  the  main  issues  of  the  debate, 
and  stating  the  conclusions  that  seem  to  me  to  have 
been  established,  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  a  few 
gratifying  features  of  the  discussion  which  are  ap- 
parently beyond  the  reach  of  controversy. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Hillquit  and  I  have  succeeded 
in  demonstrating  that  it  is  possible  for  men  to  differ  as 
widely  as  the  poles  and  yet  carry  on  a  protracted  argu- 
ment with  fairness  and  without  bitterness,  and  conclude 
it  with  both  self-respect  and  mutual  respect  unimpaired. 

Second,  we  have  on  all  substantial  points  agreed  con- 
cerning the  meaning  and  the  doctrines  of  Socialism. 
Only  those  readers  who  have  some  knowledge  of  the 
average  controversy  on  this  subject  can  realize  the 
tremendous  importance  and  advantage  of  this  agree- 
ment. It  has  enabled  us  to  confine  the  discussion  to 
positions  and  principles,  instead  of  fighting  over  defini- 
tions, and  to  make  things  correspondingly  satisfactory 
to  the  reader. 

In  the  third  place,  we  have  formally  and  deliberately 
covered  all  the  important  phases  of  Socialism.  We  have 
considered  it  not  merely  as  a  scheme  of  politico-economic 
reconstruction,  but  as  a  living  movement,  and  as  a 

245 


246  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

system  of  fundamental  principles.  The  movement  has 
been  exhibited  as  affecting  many  other  departments  of 
life  and  thought  besides  the  economic  sphere.  The 
principles  have  been  set  forth  as  embracing  a  philosophy 
of  history,  of  society,  of  life,  of  the  universe.  Owing  to 
this  fundamental  and  comprehensive  discussion,  the 
intelligent  reader  has  obtained  some  idea  of  the  larger 
aspects  of  Socialism,  and  some  explanation  of  the  hold 
which  it  takes  on  many  of  its  followers.  It  professes  to 
give  them  a  complete  theory  of  life  and  of  reality. 

In  view  of  this  thoroughgoing  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject, may  we  not  hope  to  hear  less  frequently  in  the 
future  than  in  the  past  the  shallow  and  ignorant  asser- 
tion that  Socialism  is  merely  an  economic  programme  ? 

THE  SOCIALIST  "INDICTMENT"  OF  THE  PRESENT 
SYSTEM 

In  his  rebuttal  to  my  charge  that  his  description  of 
existing  evils  was  grossly  exaggerated,  my  opponent 
merely  asserted  that  the  reforms  which  I  proposed  were 
insufficient.  For,  he  contended,  they  would  leave  the 
capitalist  in  possession  of  profits  and  interest,  which 
could  be  abolished  only  through  Socialism.  In  my 
answer  to  the  rebuttal,  I  pointed  out  that  to  look  to 
Socialism  as  the  necessary,  feasible,  and  final  goal  of 
industrial  progress,  was  to  rely  not  on  facts,  but  on 
faith. 

Let  me  take  this  opportunity  to  say  that  I  deplore 
the  actual  and  removable  evils  of  our  social  system 
quite  as  strongly  as  does  Mr.  Hillquit.  I  believe  that 
two  generations  hence  men  will  look  back  upon  the 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  247 

greed,  materialism,  oppression  of  labour,  and  hideous  con- 
trasts between  wealth  and  poverty  which  characterize 
our  time,  as  essential  barbarism.  Nor  am  I  enamoured 
with  what  has  come  to  be  known  as  the  Capitalist  Type. 
The  attitude  toward  their  fellows,  the  conception  of  their 
functions  in  society,  and  the  general  outlook  on  life 
prevailing  among  many  of  our  rich  men  and  women, 
constitute  one  of  the  most  unlovely  types  of  human 
psychology  that  have  ever  appeared  in  the  select  classes 
of  any  civilization. 

Certain  captains  of  industry  seem  to  think  that  be- 
cause the  Catholic  Church  opposes  Socialism  she  has 
pronounced  a  benediction  unqualified  upon  modern 
Capitalism.  They  would  like  to  have  her  function  as 
the  moral  policeman  of  plutocracy.  They  forget  that 
the  late  Pope  Leo  XIII  went  so  far  as  to  declare  that 
"a  small  number  of  very  rich  men  have  been  able  to 
lay  upon  the  teeming  masses  of  the  labouring  poor  a  yoke 
little  better  than  slavery  itself."  l  To  represent  the 
Church  as  the  unquestioning  upholder  of  Capitalism  is 
to  offer  an  insult  to  her  genius,  teaching,  and  traditions. 
One  after  another,  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church 
denounced  irresponsible  use  of  wealth,  and  proclaimed 
the  natural  right  of  all  men  to  live  from  the  fruits  of 
the  earth,  in  terms  which  have  caused  them  to  be 
accused  of  communism.  Indeed,  as  the  Abbot  Gasquet 
has  observed,  the  traditional  basis  of  property  as  taught 
by  the  Church  is  not  individualism,  but  Christian  col- 
lectivism.2 

For  well-nigh  a  thousand  years  the  Church  withstood 

1  Encyclical,  "On  the  Condition  of  Labour." 

8  "Christian  Democracy  in  Pre-Reformation  Times,"  p.  8. 


248  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

all  the  forces  and  wiles  of  the  Capitalism  of  those  days 
by  her  prohibition  of  interest  on  loans.  During  the 
period  of  her  greatest  influence,  the  Middle  Ages,  the 
industrial  arrangements  that  she  inspired  and  fostered 
were  not  Capitalism  and  not  the  wage  system,  but  an 
order  in  which  the  great  majority  of  the  workers  virtually 
owned  the  land  and  actually  owned  the  tools  upon 
which  and  with  which  they  laboured.1 

And  if  her  sway  had  not  been  interrupted  by  the  social 
and  religious  disturbances  of  the  sixteenth  century,  there 
is  hardly  a  shadow  of  a  reason  for  doubting  that  this 
wide  diffusion  of  productive  property  would  have  been 
indefinitely  extended  and  developed.  The  present  sys- 
tem, in  which  the  few  own  the  bulk  of  the  means  of 
production  while  the  many  possess  little  beyond  their 
labour  power,  would  have  been,  humanly  speaking, 
impossible. 

To  a  Catholic  who  knows  something  of  economic 
history,  and  something  of  the  economic  aspects  of 
Catholic  teaching,  the  attempt  to  chain  the  Church  to 
the  car  of  a  plutocratic  Capitalism  is  impudent  and 
sickening. 

"We  all  feel  —  and  those  few  of  us  who  have  analyzed 
the  matter  not  only  feel,  but  know  —  that  the  capitalist 
society  .  .  .  has  reached  its  term.  It  is  almost  self- 
evident  that  it  cannot  continue  in  the  form  which  now 
three  generations  have  known,  and  it  is  equally  self- 
evident  that  some  solution  must  be  found  for  the  in- 
creasing instability  with  which  it  has  poisoned  our  lives." 2 

The  solution,  I  confidently  believe,  will  be  found  along 

1  See  Hilaire  Belloc's  "The  Servile  State." 

2  Belloc,  op.  tit.,  p.  77. 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  249 

the  lines  that  I  have  traced  in  the  second  chapter.  Sub- 
normal conditions  of  life  and  labour  must  be  abolished ; 
excessive  gains  on  privileged  capital  must  be  made  im- 
possible; and  ways  must  be  found  through  which  the 
majority  of  the  workers  will  gradually  become  owners, 
at  least  in  part,  of  the  instruments  of  production. 

THE  SOCIALIST  INDUSTRIAL  STATE 

It  is  clarifying  to  get  from  Mr.  Hillquit  the  admission 
that,  if  ever  the  device  seems  expedient,  the  Socialists 
will  not  be  troubled  by  moral  scruples  against  the  con- 
fiscation of  capital.  In  all  probability,  however,  this 
avowal  will  not  help  the  cause  that  he  represents. 

Without  restating  the  arguments  for  capitalist  property 
rights,  I  wish  to  protest  strongly  against  my  opponent's 
misconception  of  my  account  of  prescription.  I  said 
nothing  on  this  subject  to  warrant  his  flippant  picture 
of  the  three  robbers  who  would  acquire  valid  titles  of 
ownership  by  the  crude  method  of  mutually  exchanging 
their  individual  articles  of  plunder !  I  never  said  that 
ill-gotten  capital  could  become  legitimate  through  pre- 
scription or  through  possession  by  "  innocent  third  par  ties." 
I  did  not  use  the  latter  phrase  at  all.  When  I  spoke  of 
*' innocent  individuals,"  I  referred  to  those,  and  those 
only,  who  had  already  complied  with  the  conditions  of 
prescription.  This  means,  as  a  rule,  those  who  had  in 
good  faith  been  in  possession  of  capital  for  such  a  long 
time  that  the  wronged  original  owners  had  disappeared 
forever. 

Is  this  title  so  very  unreasonable? 

Mr.  Hillquit's  denial  that  Socialism  would  take  in 


250  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

taxes  all  the  economic  rent  of  moderately  sized  and 
small  farms  may  or  may  not  put  him  in  the  class  of  those 
members  of  the  party  in  America  who,  as  Walling  inti- 
mates, are  ready  to  compromise  everything  on  this 
question  for  the  sake  of  agricultural  recruits.  In  any 
case,  it  puts  him  in  opposition  to  all  the  other  Socialist 
authorities,  and  to  the  general  and  fundamental  Socialist 
proposal  to  abolish  rent,  profits,  interest,  and  "work- 
less  "  incomes  generally. 

To  the  fundamental  and  insoluble  objection  that 
Socialism  must  fail,  owing  to  its  inability  to  provide 
adequate  substitutes  for  the  two  most  powerful  springs  of 
effort  and  efficiency,  namely,  the  hope  of  reward  and  the 
fear  of  loss,  my  opponent's  final  answer  is  —  Colonel 
Goethals.  He  hopes  that  Socialism  would  develop  in 
"our  industrial  army  conceptions  of  duty  and  honour" 
superior  to  those  which  actuate  the  officers  of  our  mili- 
tary army. 

In  this  superficial  analogy  he  has  ignored  or  over- 
looked at  least  four  salient  points. 

First,  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  army  officers 
who  have  had  charge  of  civil  enterprises  have  not  shown 
the  same  disinterestedness  and  efficiency  as  the  man  who 
built  the  Panama  Canal.  More  than  one  of  them  have 
served  terms  in  United  States  prisons  for  dishonesty  and 
graft. 

Second,  a  Socialist  regime  would  have  very  few 
Panama  Canals  to  provide  the  motives  of  conspicuous 
honour  and  fame.  Most  of  its  directive  tasks  would  be 
quite  commonplace  and  inconspicuous. 

In  the  third  place,  the  "conceptions  of  duty  and 
honour  "  possessed  by  military  chieftains  are  the  result  of 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  25 1 

thousands  of  years  of  training  and  traditions.  Does  my 
opponent  think  that  a  Socialist  regime  could  afford  to 
wait  that  long  for  the  development  of  similar  qualities 
in  the  boards  of  managers,  superintendents,  and  other 
members  of  the  bureaucracy  that  would  command  its 
"industrial  army"? 

Finally,  he  seems  to  forget  that  Colonel  Goethals 
organized  and  managed  his  canal-building  operation  on 
a  military,  not  a  democratic,  basis.  All  intelligent 
opponents  of  Socialism  agree  with  Schaeffle,  in  his  "Im- 
possibility of  Social  Democracy,"  that  a  Socialist  regime 
would  work  if  it  were  carried  on  under  the  principles  of 
militarism.  Does  Mr.  Hillquit's  use  of  the  phrase  "in- 
dustrial army"  mean  that  he  has  in  mind  that  kind  of 
Socialism  ? 

His  statement  that  Colonel  Goethals's  salary  is  "less 
than  that  of  many  a  successful  commercial  drummer,"  is 
a  trifle  misleading.  While  engaged  in  the  task  of  build- 
ing the  Canal,  Colonel  Goethals  received  $15,000  a 
year,  which  is  considerably  in  excess  of  his  regular  salary 
in  the  army,  and  which  probably  served  to  reenforce  the 
higher  motives  by  which  he  was  actuated. 

The  higher  motives  do  not  seem  to  have  been  very 
effective  in  the  case  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  workers. 
After  many  unsuccessful  attempts  to  obtain  a  working 
force  on  ordinary  terms,  and  on  liberal  terms,  the  Canal 
Commission  found  itself  compelled  to  pay  a  scale  of 
wages  and  salaries  twenty-five  to  one  hundred  per  cent 
higher  than  that  prevailing  in  similar  employments  in 
the  United  States,  and  to  add  other  special  inducements, 
"until  an  established  system  was  developed  which  con- 
tained perquisites  and  gratuities  which  in  number  and 


252  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

value  far  exceeded  anything  of  the  kind  bestowed  upon 
a  working  force  elsewhere  on  the  face  of  the  globe."  l 

On  the  whole,  my  opponent's  appeal  to  the  example 
of  Colonel  Goethals  and  the  Panama  Canal  is  somewhat 
lacking  in  aptness  and  convincingness. 

The  ultimate  fact  of  the  controversy  over  the  feasibility 
of  industrial  Socialism  is  that  its  adherents  expect  a 
mere  socio-industrial  mechanism  to  create  in  the  human 
heart  sentiments  of  honour,  altruism,  and  public  recog- 
nition infinitely  greater  than  anything  that  is  presented 
to  us  by  experience.  And  the  sole  basis  of  their  expec- 
tation is  simple  and  unreasoning  faith. 

Under  the  head  of  "Individual  Liberty,"  my  oppo- 
nent informed  us  that  Socialism  would  not  fix  wages 
and  prices  through  an  "independent  and  autocratic  au- 
thority." I  never  said  that  it  would.  "Public  authori- 
ties" and  "legislative  enactment"  were  the  phrases  that 
I  used,  and  Mr.  Hillquit  apparently  agrees  with  me  in 
this ;  for  he  employs  the  latter  phrase  himself  to  describe 
the  method  of  wage  fixing  and  price  fixing. 

Earlier  in  his  paper  he  seemed  on  the  point  of  saying 
that  the  workers  in  each  industry  might,  through  their 
representatives,  regulate  wages  and  prices  in  each  in- 
dustry !  Apparently  his  faith  in  the  perfection  of  the 
workers  faltered  when  he  contemplated  the  possibility 
of  the  various  industrial  groups  engaging  in  a  grand 
competitive  effort  to  see  which  could  award  itself  the 
highest  wages  and  charge  its  neighbours  the  highest 
prices. 

His  assertion  that  the  general  legislature  would  regu- 

1  "The  Panama  Gateway,"  by  Joseph  Bucklin  Bishop,  Secretary  of 
the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  p.  263. 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  253 

late  wages  and  prices  "with  due  regard  to  the  interests 
of  the  consumer,  and  worker,"  is,  of  course,  mere  faith 
and  prophecy.  It  does  not  at  all  meet  my  criticism 
that  the  citizen  would  be  deprived  of  that  range  of  choice 
which  he  now  has  both  as  producer  and  as  consumer; 
that  the  wages  which  he  would  receive,  the  prices  which 
he  would  pay,  and  his  entire  economic  life  would  be 
fixed,  regulated,  and  determined  by  a  single  economic 
authority,  the  national  legislature  in  national  industries, 
and  the  municipal  legislature  in  those  industries  managed 
by  the  municipality. 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  SOCIALISM 

The  convinced  Socialist  remains  rather  indifferent  to 
all  the  objections  urged  against  the  feasibility  of  his  eco- 
nomic programme.  For  his  belief  in  it  is  not  dependent 
upon  considerations  drawn  from  concrete  facts  or  ex- 
perience. He  relies  upon  a  theory  of  social  evolution 
which  assures  him  that  the  system  is  inevitable,  and 
therefore  that  it  must  prove  successful.  And  he  calls 
this  process  of  inference  "scientific."  Let  us  briefly  re- 
call the  argument :  — 

As  Marx  saw  the  matter,  the  forces  of  economic  evo- 
lution were  surely  bringing  about  a  narrow  concentra- 
tion of  wealth  and  capital,  the  elimination  of  the  middle 
classes,  and  the  ever  deeper  impoverishment  of  the 
wage-earners.  As  things  have  actually  happened, 
wealth  has  become  more  widely  diffused,  capital  has 
become  concentrated  only  in  manufactures,  the  middle 
classes  have  increased  faster  than  the  population,  and 
the  wage-earners  are  much  better  off  than  they  were 
when  Marx  uttered  his  doleful  prediction. 


254  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

His  forecast  of  a  deadly  class  struggle  which  was  to 
issue  in  Socialism  was  based  quite  as  much  upon  a  philo- 
sophical theory  as  upon  a  mistaken  interpretation  of 
economic  facts  and  tendencies.  From  Hegel  he  had 
derived  the  theory  that  the  driving  force  of  all  develop- 
ment is  antagonism,  and  that  all  progress  takes  place 
through  the  conflict  of  contradictory  elements  and  their 
reconciliation  in  a  higher  synthesis.  Applying  this  as- 
sumption to  the  economic  field,  he  concluded  that  the 
contradictory  facts  of  social  production  and  private 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  must  find  their 
solution  and  reconciliation  in  social  production  and  col- 
lective ownership. 

Even  those  Socialists  who  are  aware  that  Marx's 
prophecy  has  not  been  fulfilled,  continue  to  use  his  un- 
scientific method.  The  gap  in  their  argument  left  by 
the  absence  of  concrete  fact  they  strive  to  fill  up  by  a 
prophetical  theory.  The  limited  antagonism  of  interests 
which  Mr.  Hillquit  finds  between  capitalists  and  la- 
bourers he  forthwith  converts  into  a  class  conflict  that  is 
inevitably  eliminating  the  capitalist.  He  ignores  the  ele- 
mentary fact  that  antagonism  of  interests  is  created  in 
every  group  when  two  or  more  men  desire  a  good  that 
is  limited  in  quantity.  Even  under  Socialism,  the  con- 
sumers of  a  commodity  would  desire  to  obtain  it  as 
cheaply  as  possible,  while  the  producers  would  strive  to 
sell  it  at  the  price  which  would  bring  them  the  greatest 
measure  of  remuneration. 

What  Mr.  Hillquit  utterly  fails  to  do,  what  he  is  re- 
quired to  do  before  he  can  claim  to  be  scientific,  is  to 
prove  that  the  difference  of  interests  between  capital 
and  labour  are  of  such  a  nature  that  they  cannot  be 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  255 

satisfactorily  composed  by  any  other  method  than  So- 
cialism. 

As  I  have  intimated  above,  the  Socialist's  blind  faith 
in  the  assumed  processes  of  a  materialist  evolution 
makes  him  relatively  indifferent  to  exact  analysis,  accu- 
rate inference,  and  the  lessons  of  experience.  He  care- 
lessly exaggerates  industrial  evils,  generalizes  sweepingly 
from  meagre  inductions,  and  easily  brushes  aside  the 
most  formidable  difficulties.  And  his  faith  is  strongly 
reenforced  by  his  emotional  temperament.  In  the 
psychical  processes  of  the  average  Socialist,  the  place  of 
reason  seems  to  be  largely  usurped  by  feeling.  Hence 
it  is  very  doubtful  whether  any  person  whose  mental 
constitution  permits  him  to  accept  fully  the  Socialist 
philosophy  is  ever  converted  from  the  error  of  his  ways 
by  considerations  drawn  from  mere  facts. 

SOCIALISM  AND  MORALITY 

The  theory  that  the  moral  law  is  essentially  variable, 
that  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  different  moral  codes 
adopted  by  various  classes  and  ages,  is  obviously  de- 
structive of  strictly  moral  convictions,  and  incompatible 
with  a  consciousness  of  true  moral  obligation.  A  code  of 
law  that  has  no  deeper  basis,  no  higher  sanction,  no  more 
permanent  character  than  the  changing  notions  of  men 
can  have  no  binding  force  in  conscience.  If  the  moral 
law  be  not  an  ordinance  of  God,  or  at  least  the  cate- 
gorical imperative  of  authoritative  reason,  how  can  it 
generate  in  any  man  conceptions  of  duty?  Hence  the 
general  principle  of  Socialist  ethics  makes  for  moral 
anarchism.  It  points  to  the  conclusion  that  no  moral 
law  exists  beyond  one's  own  will  and  caprice. 


256  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

The  doctrine  that  purely  individual  actions  are  not 
governed  by  the  moral  law,  necessarily  implies,  as  I 
have  shown,  that  the  individual  has  neither  moral  worth 
in  himself  nor  moral  duties  toward  himself;  that  his 
rational  faculties  are  not  intrinsically  superior  to  his 
sense  faculties ;  that  a  man  has  no  more  duties  toward 
himself  than  has  a  pig;  and  that  a  life  of  the  most 
degrading  personal  debauchery  is  quite  as  reasonable 
and  laudable  as  a  life  of  the  noblest  intellectual  and 
moral  activity. 

Mr.  Hillquit's  only  answer  to  these  statements  was 
that  one  might  hold  the  physical  and  the  intellectual 
functions  in  equal  esteem  without  valuing  the  abuses  of 
the  former  as  highly  as  the  proper  and  normal  uses  of  the 
latter. 

This  is  mere  question  begging.  By  what  test  does  he 
distinguish  "normal  uses"  from  "abuses"?  Not  by  a 
moral  test,  for  he  denies  that  purely  individual  actions 
have  moral  quality.  Nor  by  the  test  of  general  reason- 
ableness; for  if  the  physical  and  rational  faculties  are 
equally  valuable,  equally  important,  and  equally  au- 
thoritative, the  individual  may  reasonably  decide  for 
himself  to  what  extent  he  shall  exercise  either  of  them. 
Since  the  rational  no  more  than  the  physical  faculties 
have  intrinsic  worth,  a  man  can  be  no  more  reasonably 
criticised  for  neglecting  their  development  than  for  refus- 
ing to  develop  the  capacities  of  a  dog  or  a  horse.  De- 
bauching exercise  of  the  physical  powers  can  be  reason- 
ably called  an  abuse  only  on  the  theory  that  they  are 
intrinsically  inferior  and  morally  subordinate  to  the 
rational  faculties,  and  are  instruments  for  the  welfare  of 
a  morally  sacred  personality. 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  257 

Hence  it  is  my  opponent  himself  who  executes  the 
"logical  somersault"  on  this  point ;  just  as  he  did  when 
he  inferred  that  because  men  have  made  grave  mis- 
takes in  the  application  of  the  unchanging  moral  law,  no 
such  law  exists ;  and  when  he  spoke  of  an  ever  progress- 
ing ethical  ideal,  and  yet  rejected  the  only  possible 
measure  of  progress  —  a  permanent  moral  law.  He  for- 
got that  men  make  quite  as  great  mistakes  in  applying 
the  laws  of  medicine,  education,  jurisprudence,  and 
other  practical  sciences;  and  that  the  mere  lapse  of 
time  is  not  a  sufficiently  authoritative  standard  to 
warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  ethical  ideal  of  to-day 
is  higher  than  that  of  the  Vandals. 

MARRIAGE  UNDER  SOCIALISM 

My  opponent  contends  that  sex  partnerships  ter- 
minable at  the  will  of  either  party  (for  they  are  to  last 
only  as  long  as  their  sole  basis,  mutual  love,  endures) 
may  properly  be  called  monogamous.  I  think  he  is 
wrong,  but  we  shall  not  quarrel  over  definitions.  The 
institution  that  he  defends  is  the  all-important  thing. 

My  contention  that  his  "love  unions"  would  last  a 
much  shorter  time  than  the  average  marriage  of  to-day 
drew  from  him  a  more  or  less  irrelevant  statement  con- 
cerning the  alarming  number  of  divorces  in  the  United 
States.  Inasmuch  as  the  great  majority  of  our  divorces 
occur  among  the  upper  and  middle  classes,  in  which  the 
woman  was  not  obliged  to  marry  for  a  livelihood,  but 
possessed  opportunities  of  "economic  independence"  at 
least  equal  to  the  average  that  would  prevail  under 
Socialism,  they  evidently  refute  rather  than  support  the 


258  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

view  of  my  opponent  that  marriages  based  upon  love 
alone  would  "endure  in  undimmed  and  lifelong  purity 
in  a  much  larger  number  of  cases  than  to-day." 

That  such  a  large  proportion  of  adults  are  unmarried 
is  a  condition  which  I  deplore  and  condemn  quite  as 
strongly  as  Mr.  Hillquit.  However,  neither  this  fact 
nor  the  prevalence  of  illicit  sexual  intercourse  has  any 
relevancy  to  the  question  of  the  durability  of  "love 
unions,"  or  creates  any  probability  that  conjugal  condi- 
tions would  be  better  under  Socialism.  In  so  far  as 
these  evils  are  due  to  economic  causes,  they  can  be  re- 
moved by  measures  of  social  reform ;  in  so  far  as  they 
are  traceable  to  the  lack  of  moral  and  religious  training 
and  convictions  —  and  this  is  their  principal  cause  — 
they  cannot  be  removed  by  any  mere  change  in  indus- 
trial arrangements.  To  assert  the  contrary  is  merely  to 
utter  prophecy. 

Purely  prophetical  also  is  the  naive  assurance  of  my 
opponent  that  all  those  features  of  industrial  occupations 
which  are  physically  or  morally  harmful  to  women,  will 
somehow  vanish  under  Socialism.  For  the  most  part 
these  detrimental  conditions  are  inherent  in  the  very 
nature  of  industrial  operations.  They  are  not  removable 
by  legislation. 

In  his  interpretation  of  the  assumptions  underlying 
my  argument  concerning  the  economic  relations  of 
woman,  my  opponent  is  not  quite  accurate.  I  do  not 
assume  that  "all  women  are  married,"  but  that  the  great 
majority  ought  to  be  married.  I  do  not  assume  that 
"all  married  women  bear  children,"  but  that,  with  ex- 
tremely rare  exceptions,  they  all  ought  to  bear  children. 
I  do  not  assume  that  "all  married  women  bear  children, 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  259 

and  nurse  them  all  the  time,"  but  that  practically  all 
married  women  normally  require  so  much  time  for 
bearing,  nursing,  and  rearing  their  offspring  that  they 
cannot  earn  a  livelihood  outside  the  home.  In  propor- 
tion as  any  society  fails  to  conform  to  these  fundamental 
assumptions,  it  is  morally  injurious  to  woman  herself, 
to  the  family,  and  to  the  race.  Persons  who  honestly 
deny  this  statement  are  taking  a  superficial  and  short- 
sighted view  of  human  nature  and  human  experience. 

Mr.  Hillquit  refuses  to  say  whether  Socialists  would 
have  recourse  to  deeds  of  violence  if  they  found  these 
expedient.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which  "silence 
gives  consent."  If  the  Socialists  regarded  such  conduct 
as  morally  wrong,  they  would  be  glad  to  proclaim  the 
fact;  since  they  do  not  think  it  morally  wrong,  they 
would  certainly  employ  it  if  it  should  appear  to  them 
advisable.  La  Monte  undoubtedly  states  the  attitude 
of  all  other  Socialists  when  he  intimates  that  they 
"recognize  and  praise  as  moral  all  conduct  that  tends 
to  hasten  the  social  revolution." 

MORALITY  vs.  SOCIAL  EXPEDIENCY 

My  opponent  seemed  to  think  that  he  was  scoring 
heavily  when  he  cited  my  statement:  "In  the  matter 
of  social  institutions,  moral  values  and  genuine  expedi- 
ency are  in  the  long  run  identical."  Apparently  he  re- 
garded this  as  equivalent  to  the  statement  that  what- 
ever is  socially  expedient  at  any  given  time  is  morally 
good. 

He  was  mistaken.  My  statement  was  restricted  to 
social  institutions  and  social  systems.  I  should  have 


260  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

written  "economic"  instead  of  "social,"  for  I  had  in 
mind  only  social  institutions  which  are  economic.  My 
statement  did  not  comprise  the  whole  range  of  expedi- 
ency. It  did  not  include  all  socially  expedient  actions. 
While  I  advocate  certain  social  reforms  as  both  expedient 
and  right,  I  unconditionally  reject  certain  means  of  at- 
taining them  which  John  Spargo  conditionally  approves : 
"setting  the  torch  to  a  few  buildings,  or  summary  exe- 
cution of  a  few  members  of  the  possessing  class." 

I  condemn  these  actions  because  I  believe  that  the 
individual  has  certain  indestructible  rights.  Mr.  Hillquit 
and  Mr.  Spargo,  and  Socialists  generally,  do  not  admit 
that  the  individual  has  any  rights  against  the  social 
organism,  the  State. 

To  put  the  difference  between  us  in  other  and  more 
general  terms :  In  case  of  conflict  or  apparent  conflict 
between  the  two,  I  make  morality  the  test  of  social  ex- 
pediency, while  my  opponent  would  make  social  ex- 
pediency the  test  of  morality.  The  difference  is  funda- 
mental and  far  reaching. 

Owing  to  the  pernicious  character  of  the  general  prin- 
ciple and  the  three  particular  doctrines  of  Socialist 
ethics,  its  ideal  as  announced  by  my  opponent,  namely, 
the  happiness  and  welfare  of  the  community  and  of  all 
the  component  individuals,  rests  on  very  precarious 
grounds.  When  the  moral  law  becomes  merely  a  social 
convention,  and  is  emptied  of  the  concept  of  moral 
obligation ;  when  the  most  debasing  individual  conduct 
is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  moral  denotation  or  con- 
demnation ;  when  marital  relations  are  adjusted  on  the 
basis  of  selfish  and  temporary  passion ;  and  when  the 
State  becomes  the  supreme  arbiter  of  right  and  wrong, 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS  261 

justice  and  injustice,  —  the  ethical  ideal  just  mentioned 
is  not  likely  to  be  very  generally  or  very  deeply  culti- 
vated. 

SOCIALISM  AND  RELIGION 

In  his  reply  to  the  charge  that  the  Socialist  movement 
is  antagonistic  to  religion,  Mr.  Hillquit  admitted  that 
the  relations  between  the  average  Socialist  and  the 
Church  are  "rather  strained,"  and  that  the  "majority 
of  Socialists  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile 
their  general  philosophic  views  with  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  dogmatic  religious  creeds."  He  also  re- 
fused to  accept  the  suggestion  that  Socialism  purge 
itself  of  its  antireligious  elements  by  eliminating  its 
teaching  on  philosophy,  ethics,  and  religion.  In  sub- 
stance, then,  he  conceded  that  Socialism  as  a  living 
movement  and  system  of  thought  is  fundamentally 
and  necessarily  incompatible  with  any  definite  religious 
creed,  whether  Catholicism,  Protestantism,  or  Judaism. 

The  first  part  of  my  opponent's  surrejoinder  on  this 
subject  is  unnecessary;  the  second,  irrelevant.  In  my 
rejoinder  I  had  pointed  out  that  Father  Dewe's  language 
could  not  be  construed  as  an  acceptance  of  economic 
determinism  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  did  not  make 
economic  factors  the  ultimate  determinant  of  all  social 
changes.  Instead  of  meeting  this  point  squarely,  Mr. 
Hillquit  ventured  into  the  field  of  Catholic  theology, 
and  demanded  to  know  why  the  theory  of  economic 
determinism  might  not  properly  be  looked  upon  by  a 
Catholic  as  "the  rule  by  which  God  directs  the  course 
of  social  progress." 

The  obviously  simple  answer  is  that  the  Catholic 


262  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

holds  that  God  made  the  universe  dualistic,  not  monistic. 
The  world  is  not  entirely  material.  It  includes  human 
souls,  and  these  are  original  and  independent  sources  of 
energy.  They  influence  social  changes  and  social  con- 
ditions not  as  instrumental  and  secondary  causes  reflect- 
ing the  energy  of  material  forces,  but  as  primary 
and  original  causes.  Neither  the  Catholic  nor  any 
other  believer  in  the  human  soul  can  accept  economic 
determinism,  which,  as  expounded  by  all  orthodox 
Socialists  from  Engels  to  Hillquit,  attributes  all  social 
causality  to  economic  and  material  factors  "in  the 
last  instance."1 

My  opponent  contended  that  the  harmony  between 
religion  and  science  could  not  be  proved  from  specific 
instances  of  believing  scientists.  I  never  said  that  it 
could.  I  showed,  in  the  first  place,  that  between  science 
as  such  and  religion  as  such  there  can  be  no  antagonism, 
since  they  deal  with  entirely  different  spheres  of  reality ; 
and,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  vast  majority  of  the 
great  scientists  were  religious  believers.  Apparently,  Mr. 
Hillquit  did  not  care  to  controvert  the  first  statement. 
Instead  of  attempting  to  refute  the  second,  he  shifted 
his  ground,  and  declared  that  no  harmony  is  possible 
so  long  as  the  Church  opposes  science  ! 

His  original  contention  was  that  science  and  the 
scientists  were  opposed  to  religion.  He  asserted  that 
the  irreligion  of  the  average  Socialist  is  neither  greater 
nor  less  than  the  irreligion  of  "the  average  enlightened 
person  who  has  been  trained  in  the  methods  of  contem- 
poraneous thought  and  who  accepts  the  conclusions  of 
modern  science."  He  wanted  to  get  the  Socialists  into 

1  Engels. 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  263 

good  company.  In  his  surrejoinder  he  abandoned  the 
attempt,  leaving  his  brethren  naked,  so  far  as  the  cloak 
of  science  is  concerned. 

Although  his  assertion  about  the  attitude  of  the  Church 
toward  science  is  irrelevant  to  this  debate,  I  cannot  let 
it  pass  without  a  brief  refutation. 

In  the  first  place,  neither  he  nor  any  one  else  can  prove 
that  the  Catholic  Church  has  ever  officially  or  semi- 
officially condemned  a  principle  or  conclusion  of  science 
which  had  already  passed  from  the  sphere  of  hypothesis 
to  that  of  established  fact. 

In  the  second  place,  his  representation  of  the  historical 
events  that  he  cites  is  grossly  misleading.  Copernicus 
deferred  the  publication  of  his  discoveries  from  fear, 
not  of  "theological  persecution,"  but  of  the  "mathema- 
ticians," that  is,  the  philosophers  of  his  time.  That  this 
is  the  true  explanation,  we  know  from  the  letter  in  which 
he  dedicated  the  work  to  Pope  Paul  III.  Neither  this 
Pope  nor  any  of  the  nine  who  followed  him  in  the 
course  of  the  next  seventy-two  years  interfered  in  the 
slightest  with  the  discussion  and  spread  of  the  Co- 
pernican  theories. 

Galileo  met  with  opposition  from  the  authorities  at 
Rome  only  when  he  was  no  longer  content  to  put  forth 
the  heliocentric  theory  as  a  scientific  hypothesis,  but 
insisted  on  dogmatically  proclaiming  it  as  an  established 
fact  and  interpreting  the  Scriptures  accordingly.  In 
other  words,  he  got  into  trouble  because  he  was  too 
hasty,  and  because  he  went  outside  his  province  as  a 
scientist.  Thomas  Henry  Huxley,  who  can  scarcely 
be  accused  of  pro-religious  bias,  wrote  to  St.  George 
Mivart,  November  12,  1885  :  — 


264  SOCIALISM:  PROMISE  OR  MENACE 

"I  gave  some  attention  to  the  case  of  Galileo  when 
I  was  in  Italy,  and  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Pope 
and  the  College  of  Cardinals  had  rather  the  best  of 
it." 

It  is  not  accurate  to  say  that  Pope  Pius  IX  condemned 
the  Darwinian  theory  as  a  "heretic  aberration."  In 
the  first  place,  he  never  pronounced  upon  it  officially; 
in  the  second  place,  his  informal  criticism  of  it  (in  a  letter 
to  a  French  physician)  referred  mainly  to  its  denial  of 
the  Creator. 

Original  Darwinism  excluded  God  from  the  universe, 
held  that  the  human  soul  was  evolved  from  matter,  and 
regarded  the  entire  cosmos  as  the  product  of  chance, 
through  natural  selection  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest. 
Apparently,  Mr.  Hillquit  assumes  that  this  discredited 
system  of  philosophical  speculation  is  identical  with  the 
scientific  theory  of  evolution.  He  does  not  seem  to 
know  that,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  materialists  like 
Haeckel,  scientists  of  to-day  reject  the  philosophical 
elements  of  original  Darwinism. 

The  other  historical  assertions  of  my  opponent  are 
about  as  accurate  as  the  three  just  criticised.  Indeed, 
Socialist  history  is  no  more  reliable  than  Socialist  eco- 
nomics or  Socialist  science.  It  is  antiquated,  inaccurate, 
and  confused.  It  is  based  not  upon  facts  and  first-hand 
authorities,  but  upon  prejudice  and  popularizers.  Mr. 
Hillquit  has  taken  the  historical  perversions  that  he 
presents  to  us  from  Andrew  D.  White's  "Warfare  of 
Science  with  Theology."  Despite  its  pretentious  char- 
acter and  its  array  of  references  and  foot-notes,  this 
work  is  extremely  misleading.  It  is  fundamentally 
unscientific,  because  its  spirit,  as  perceived  on  almost 


SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSIONS  265 

every  page,  is  not  the  spirit  of  truth  seeking,  but  of  anti- 
religious  bias. 

One  or  two  instances  will  give  some  notion  of  its  un- 
reliability. Dr.  White  intimates  (and  in  this  he  is  fol- 
lowed by  Mr.  Hillquit)  that  Giordano  Bruno  was  burned 
at  the  stake  because  he  propagated  the  theories  of  Coper- 
nicus; but  the  records  of  his  trial  show  that  he  was 
executed  on  account  of  his  peculiar  theological  opinions. 
He  had  previously  been  excommunicated  by  the  Cal- 
vinists  and  the  Lutherans.  The  account  given  by  Dr. 
White  of  the  Church's  attitude  toward  interest  taking, 
and  of  its  consequences,  will  seem  little  better  than  a 
caricature  to  any  one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  authori- 
tative works  of  economic  historians,  such  as  Professors 
Ashley  and  Cunningham. 

There  is,  however,  one  unexceptionable  statement 
in  Mr.  Hillquit's  surrejoinder.  He  says  that  "there  is 
little  likelihood  of  a  hearty  understanding  and  active 
cooperation  between  the  Socialist  movement  and  the 
Catholic  Church  so  long  as  both  remain  what  they  are." 
How  could  any  man  who  knows  and  thinks  expect  any- 
thing else?  On  the  one  hand,  the  Socialists  will  not 
reject  those  philosophical,  ethical,  and  religious  doctrines 
which  make  their  system  vastly  more  than  an  economic 
theory  and  programme.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Catholic 
Church  realizes  quite  clearly  the  presence,  the  extent, 
and  the  pernicious  character  of  these  non-economic  ele- 
ments in  the  Socialist  system  and  the  Socialist  movement. 
As  the  guardian  of  faith  and  morals,  she  must  unceasingly 
oppose  an  organization  that  propagates  such  false  and 
destructive  doctrines. 


INDEX 


The  references  to  Mr.  Hillquit's  chapters  are  designated  by  H ;  the  references 
to  Dr.  Ryan's  chapters  are  designated  by  R. 


Adams,  Brooks,  R  42 

Adler,  Victor,  H  6 

American  Socialists,  and  religion,  R  194, 

iQS 

American  Tobacco  Company,  R  28 
Anarchy,  industrial,  R  27,  32 
Antagonism  of  Interests,  R  33-35,  106- 

109,  I3S,  254 
Authorities,  Socialist,  R  n 

Bax,  Belford,  R  148,  189 

Bebel,  August,  H  6,  8 ;  R  143,  148,  149, 

188. 
Bernstein,  Eduard,  H  131,   133,   212; 

R  113,  114,  140-142. 
Blatchford,  R.,  R  189 
Brandeis,  L.  D.,  R  60,  116 
Bruno,  Giordano,  H  227;  R  265 
Buffon,  George,  H  228 
Bureaucracy,  see  Liberty,  R 

Canal  Zone,  H  83 

Capital,  concentration  of,  R  112-117, 
136,  253 ;  contribution  of  to  product, 
109-111;  management  of  under 
Socialism,  49,  58-62 ;  ownership  of, 
39,  41,  42,  107,  115,  136;  sources  of, 
53,  54,  139,  140 

Capitalism,  arrogance  of,  R  246,  247 ; 
breaking  down,  41,  42;  corrupting 
influence  of,  35-38;  morality  of, 
167,  168;  development  of,  H  101 ; 
rise  of,  H  70 

Capitalists,  number  of,  R  137 

Capitalist  ethics,  H  155 

Capitalist  system  of  wealth  production, 

HI3 

Capitalist  wealth  denned,  H  93 
Catholic  Church,  H  3,  178,  204,  208, 
209,  241 


Catholic  Socialism,  H  3 
"Catholic  Telegraph,"  H  212 
"Catholic  Tribune,"  H  212 
Chicago  Convention,  R  186,  187 
Christian  Socialism,  H  3 
Christianity,  and  economic  conditions, 

R  105,    106,    134,    196,    197 ;     and 

Socialism,  216;  see  Religion,  Church 
Christianity  denned,  H  202 
Church,  abandonment  of  by  Socialists, 

R  192,  193 ;   and  capitalism,  36,  37, 

247,    248 ;     and    science,    263-265 ; 

and   Socialist   irreligion,    220,    221; 

development  of  the,  H  206 
Classes  and  class-struggles,  H  19,  96, 

122,  123,  125 
"Class-struggle,"    H    92,     129,    131; 

R  106-109,  121,  135,  138,  141,  254; 

see  Antagonism  of  Interests 
Collective  ownership  denned,  H  72 
Commons,  J.  R.,  R  138 
Communist  Manifesto,  R  57,  106,  112 
Competition,  necessity  of,  R  59,  60,  65 
Concentration,  of  capital  and  wealth, 

R  112-117,    136,    253;     see    Trusts, 

Monopoly 
Conduct,    moral    criterion   of,    R 145, 

146,   152-154,   169,   170,   171,   260, 

261 

Confiscation,  H73;   R  52-55,  153,  249 
Cooperation,  R  42,  46,  50,  64,  65 
Cooperative  societies,  H  82 
Copernicus,    Nicholas,    H    226,    227; 

R  219,  263 

Corruption,  political,  R  35,  36 
Crime,  see  Vice,  R 
Culture,  of  the  masses,  R  33 


Darwinism,  R  264 
Despotism,  see  Liberty,  R 


267 


268 


INDEX 


Determinism,  economic,  R  103-106, 
i2i,  134,  144,  148,  149,  166-169, 
195-197,  217,  218,  261,  262 

Dewe,  Rev.  J.  A.,  H  203,  204,  224, 
225;  R  217,  218,  261 

Dietzgen,  J.,  R  143,  188 

Distribution  of  Wealth,  H  17 

Divorce,  and  love  marriages,  R 174, 
257,  258 ;  see  Marriage 

Divorces  in  modern  society,  H  181 

Economic  determinism,  see  Economic 

Interpretation  of  History,  H 
Economic    interpretation    of    history 

explained,  H  90,  99,   122,   129,   131, 

225 ;  R,  see  Determinism 
Education,  and  economic  conditions, 

R  144;  monopoly  of,  69, 151, 174, 175 
Education  under  Socialism,  H  86,  163 
Ely,  R.  T.,  R  29 
Engels,  Frederick,  H  6,  7,  8;  R  n,  103, 

104, 112, 143, 149, 188, 196, 197 
English  Wholesale  Cooperative  Society, 

H82 

Erfurt  Programme,  H  199;  R  151,  186 

Ethical  evolution,  H  158 

Ethical  Ideal,  H  179 

Ethics,  see  Conduct,  Morality,  Moral 

law,  R 
Evolution,  ethical,  R    144,   146,    147, 

170,  171,  257;   social,  47,  103,  121, 

2S3-2SS 
Exaggeration,  Socialist,  R  27-39,  i°5, 

106,  134,  246 
Expediency,  as  criterion  of  conduct, 

R  152-154,  175,  176,  259,  260;   r&le 

of  hi  Socialist  ethics,  H  164,  184,  236 

Faith,  see  Determinism,  Fatalism, 
Materialism,  Science,  Utopianism,  R 

Family  under  Capitalism,  H  161 ; 
under  Socialism,  H  163,  184;  see 
Education,  Marriage,  Monogamy,  R 

Farley,  Cardinal  John  M.,  H  203 

Farms,  ownership  of,  R  113,  114,  118, 
136;  see  Concentration,  Land 

Fatalism  and  Socialism,  H  237 ;  R  121, 
135,  141,  253-255;  see  Determin- 
ism, Materialism 

Ferri,  E.,  R  189 

Figures  of  Speech,  R  28,  29;  see 
Exaggeration 


Final  Ethics,  H  179 
Fourier,  Charles,  H  98 

Galileo,  G.,  R  263,  264 

Goethals,  Col.  George,  H  83,  84 ;  R  61, 

250-252 
Guesde,  Jules,  H  6 

Half  Truths,  R  29-33 ;  see  Exaggeration 
Happiness,    as    criterion   of   conduct, 

R  152,  169,  171,  260,  261 
Hardie,  J.  Keir,  H  6 
Hegel,  G.  F.  W.,  R  120,  121,  254 
Herron,  G.  D.,  R  143,  189 
Hillquit,  M.,  RSI,  143,  152 
History,  aprioristic,  R22i;    Socialist, 

265,  266 ;  see  Determinism 
Hourwich,  I.  A.,  R  137,  138 
Hunter,  R.,  R  29 
Huxley,  T.  H.,  R  264 
Hyndman,  H.  M.,  H  6 

Ideal,  Socialist,  Ri2;  see  Conduct, 
Happiness 

Immediate  Demands,  in  Socialist  plat- 
forms, R  44,  45 

Immorality,  see  Morality,  Vice,  R 

Incentive  under  Socialism,  H  80 ;  R  50- 
65,  250-252 

Incomes,  excessive,  R  39,  40,  46 ;  see 
Class  Struggle,  Concentration 

Increasing  Misery,  theory  of,  R  112, 
"3. 135, 141,  253 ;  see  Concentration 

Individual  Actions,  ethics  of,  R  147, 
148,  171,  172,  256 

Individual  h'berty  under  Socialism, 
H  85,  87 

Individual  tool,  H  70 

Industries,  management  of  under 
Socialism,  H  80 

"Inevitability"  of  Socialism,  H  237 

Instruments  of  Production,  see 
Capital,  R 

Insurance,  R  29,  31,  40 

Interest,  abolition  of,  R  46 ;  justifica- 
tion of,  54 ;  see  Capital 

International  Socialism,  H  4 ;  R  10,  1 2 

International  Socialist  Bureau,  H  4 

Irreligion,  of  Socialism,  R  218-220;  of 
science,  263 

Jaures,  Jean,  H  6 


INDEX 


269 


Kautsky,  Karl,  H  6,  122,  131,  133,  201, 
225,  238,  242;  R  50,  51,  68,  105,  134, 
142,  143,  150,  196,  215,  216 

"Labour"    as   employed   in   Socialist 

economics    defined,    H    94;   R,    see 

Product,  Wage  Earners 
Labour  Unions,  R  40,  in,  135 
Laf argue,  Paul,  H  6;  R  188 
La  Monte,  R.,  R  143,  152,  259 
Land  ownership,  Socialist  view  of,  H 

78 
Land,  tenure  of  under  Socialism,  R  48, 

49,  56,  57,  249,  250;   see  Farms 
Lassalle,  Ferdinand,  H  6,  7 
Leaders,  Socialist,  and  religion,  R  187- 

190 
Leadership,  industrial  under  Socialism, 

R  58-62,  250,  251 
Leatham,  J.,  R  193 
Leo  XIII,  Pope,  R  55 
Liberty,  loss  of  under  Socialism,  R  32, 

47,  58,  66-69,  251,  253;  of  religious 

practices,  R  221,  222 
Liebknecht,  Wilhelm,  H  6,  200;   R  69, 

187,  216,  222 
Literature,     Socialist,     and     religion, 

R 190-192 

Loria,  Achille,  H  122,  242 
Love-Unions,  R  149-151,  172-174,  257, 

258 

Maison  du  Peuple,  H  82 

Manufactures,  concentration  in,  R  1 14, 
115,  "8,  253 

Marriage,  and  morality,  R  257,  258 ; 
and  Socialism,  R  148,  151,  172-174, 
257,  258 

Marshall,  A.,  R  38 

Marx,  Karl,  H  6,  7,  89,  90,  93,  94,  98, 
130,  131,  238;  R  103,  109,  112,  113, 
139,  144.  149,  187 

Marxism,  fundamentals  of,  H  88 

Materialism,  R  103-105,  121,  143-145, 
169,  196,  197,  255,  262;  see  Deter- 
minism 

Materialist  Conception  of  history,  H, 
see  Economic  Interpretation  of  His- 
tory 

Meade,  E.  S.,  R  60,  116 

Middle  Ages,  R  30,  248 

"Middle    Classes,"    defined,    H    99; 


R  112,  113,  137,  253;  see  Concentra- 
tion 

Minimum  Wage,  R  31,  40,  45 

"Monogamy,"  R  148-150,  172,  173, 
257 ;  defined,  H  181 

Monopoly,  R  40,  41,'  116,  117;  see 
Concentration,  Trusts 

Morality,  and  economic  conditions, 
R  105, 134, 143, 166-168 ;  and  Social- 
ism, R  143-154,  166-176,  255-257; 
see  Conduct,  Vice 

Moral  Law,  R  143,  147,  160-171,  255- 
257 ;  see  Conduct 

Movement,  Socialist,  R  12,  119,  138, 
139,  197-199.  221-224,  246,  261, 
263,  265 

Murder,  and  war,  R  166,  167 

Mutability  of  moral  perceptions,  H  158, 
176 

Nature,  human,  R  38,  42 ;  see  Incen- 
tives; rational,  as  criterion  of  con- 
duct, R  145, 146, 169, 171, 172 

Obligation,  moral,  R  145,  147, 148,  172, 

255,  256 
Owen,  Robert,  H  98 

Panama  Canal,  H  83,  84 
Pannekoek,  Dr.  Anton,  H  199 
Pauperization,  progressive,  H  238 
Philosophy,    Socialist,    R    10,    12,    13, 

103-122,  134-142,  173,  244,  255 
Pius  IX,  Pope,  R  264 
Platforms,  Socialist,  R  186,  187 
Plekhanoff,  Georges,  H  6 
Political  corruption,  H  20 
Politics,     and     economic    conditions, 

R  105 ;  see  Corruption 
Population  of  United  States  classified 

by  occupations,  H  125 
Poverty,  causes  of,  H  25 ;    in  United 

States,  R  29 
Prescription,  R  55,   249;    title  by,  H 

77 

Press,  corruption  of,  R  36,  37 ;  shack- 
ling of,  R  68,  69 

Privilege,  and  capital,  R  31 

Product,  of  labour,  R  109-111;  see 
Capital 

Progres,  H  82 

Public  grants,  ethical  aspect  of,  H  76 


270 


INDEX 


Purification  of  Socialism,  R  197-199, 
223,  261 

Rank  and  File,  of  workers  under 
Socialism,  R  62-64,  251,  252 

Rauschenbusch,  W.,  R  194,  195 

Reform,  social,  R  13,  31,  39-42,  44~47, 
248,  249 

Religion,  defined,  H  202 ;  and  economic 
conditions,  R  105,  144 ;  and  science, 
H  205,  226;  R  217-220;  under 
Socialism,  H  213;  R  187-198,  218, 
261,  263 

Revisionism,  R  140 

"  Revisionistic"  Socialism,  H  131 

Rights,  natural,  R  56,  259,  260 

Savings  Banks,  R  113 

Schools,  and  capitalism,  R  37 

Science,  and  religion,  R  195,  218-220; 
and  Socialism,  R  119-121,  253-255 

Shaw,  G.  Bernard,  H  7;  R  n 

Simkhovitch,  V.  D.,  R  120,  134,  138 

Social  reform,  the  limit  of,  H  43 

Social  tool,  H  70 

Socialism,  defined,  H  8,  9,  70;  and 
agnosticism,  H  204 ;  and  the  church, 
H  206 ;  and  the  family,  H  161 ;  and 
morality,  H  154;  and  religion, 
H  199;  and  religious  tolerance, 
H  210;  and  social  reform,  H  43,  234; 
of  the  Chair,  H  3 

Socialist,  authorities,  H  5 ;  ethics 
defined,  H  154;  ideal,  H  9;  indict- 
ment, H  14;  programme,  H  9,  26, 
72,  99,  157,  232 ;  State,  H  9,  69,  82, 
239 ;  R  48-69 

Spargo,  John,  R  49,  151,  153,  175,  189, 
195,  260 

Standard  of  Living,  R  109,  1 10,  140 


Standard  Oil  Company,  R  28,  52 

State  Socialism,  H  3 

Streightoff,  F.   H.,  R   107,  115,    136; 

H  124,  125 
"Surplus  value,"  defined,  H  95,  122, 

129;  R  109,  in,  120, 140 
System,  present  economic,  R  13,  29-35 

Tactics,  Socialist,  R  186,  187,  216 

Taussig,  F.  W.,  R  64,  116 

Taxation,  R  41 

Trusts,  R  28,  35,  115-117;  social 
effects  of,  H  1 6,  17;  see  Concen- 
tration 

United  States  Steel  Corporation,  R  52 
Utopianism,  R47,  121,  135 

Vandervelde,  Emile,  H  6 ;  R  188 

Variable  ethics,  H  158,  160 

Veblen,  T.,  R  32 

Vice,  and  economic  conditions,  R  105, 

134,  144 ;    see  Morality 
Violence  and  Socialism,  R  153, 175, 176, 

250 
Vooruit,  H  82 

Wage  Earners,  R  29-31,  39,  118,  119; 

number  of,  137,  138 
Wages,  R  39,  40,  109-112,  140 
Wallace,  Alfred  Russel,  H  226 
Walling,  W.  E.,  R  49,  52,  57,  190 
War,  and  murder,  R  166,  167 
Wealth,    distribution    of    in    United 

States,  H  124;  sources  of,  H  75 
White,  A.  D.,  R  265 
Women,  and  industry,  R  173,  174,  258 
Working  Class,  increase  of,  H  101 

Zentral  Verein,  H  82 


T 


HE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of 
books  by  the  same  authors  or  on  kindred  subjects. 


W^here  and 

Public  Ownership  has  Failed 

By  YVES  GUYOT 


Author  of  "  Socialistic  Fallacies  " 

Editor-in-Chief  of  the  Journal  des  Rconomistes,  President  of  the  Societe 
D 'Economic  Politique  of  Paris,  Member  of  the  American  Academy  of 
Political  and  Social  Science,  Hon.  Member  of  the  Royal  Statistical  Society 
and  the  Cobden  Club  of  Great  Britain,  Former  Vice-president  of  the 
Municipal  Council  of  Paris,  Deputy  to  the  French  Parliament  and  Minister 
of  Public  Works,  etc.,  etc. 

Translated  from  the  French  by 

H.   F.   BAKER 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net;  postpaid,  $1.63 

What  have  state  ownership  and  operations  accomplished  in  the  way  of 
tax  and  other  reforms  in  those  cases  where  they  have  been  tried  ?  Yves 
Guyot,  statesman,  traveler,  editor,  economist,  here  answers  the  questions 
in  perhaps  the  most  exhaustive  treatise  thus  far  published  upon  the  subject. 

The  author  believes  that  neither  states  nor  municipalities  should  attempt 
tasks  especially  adapted  to  individual  effort ;  in  the  case  of  those  utilities 
in  which  the  public  interest  is  general,  as  railways,  water,  gas,  electricity, 
tramways,  etc.,  there  must  be  a  physically  and  morally  responsible  body, 
accountable  to  the  public  on  the  one  hand  and  the  service  on  the  other, 
and  protected  by  contracts  against  vacillations  of  public  opinion  and  the 
extortionate  demands  of  interested  groups,  whether  employees,  consumers, 
or  politicians ;  for  individuals  the  watchword  should  be  action ;  for  local 
and  state  governments,  control. 

A  glance  at  a  few  of  the  topics  leading  to  these  conclusions  is  a  suffi- 
cient index  of  the  comprehensive  character  of  the  work :  Municipal 
Activity  of  the  United  Kingdom,  The  United  States,  Germany,  Russia, 
France,  Austria-Hungary,  Italy,  Denmark,  Switzerland,  Belgium,  Sweden; 
State  Operation  of  Railroads ;  State  and  Municipal  Bookkeeping  and 
Finances  ;  Private  versus  Public  Initiative  ;  The  Housing  of  the  Working 
Class  ;  State  and  Municipal  Extravagance  ;  Political  and  Social  Conse- 
quences of  a  Socialist  Program. 

"A  book  that  is  going  to  prove  useful  in  these  days  of  more  or  less 
general  and  thoughtless  talk  about  public  ownership." — Journal  of 
Commerce. 


THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


Socialism   in    Theory  and  Practice 

By  MORRIS  HILLQUIT 


Cloth,  i2tno,  $1.50  net;  by  mail,  $1.63 
Standard  Library  Edition,  $.50  net 


Mr.  Morris  Hillquit  has  received  general  praise  for  the  moderation  and  can- 
dor which  characterize  his  "Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice."  The  rapid 
development  of  socialism  in  America  in  the  last  few  years  has  brought  about 
an  imperative  need  for  an  authoritative  and  comprehensive  statement  of  just 
what  the  movement  means,  both  as  a  theory  and  as  a  practical  political  prob- 
lem. Mr.  Hillquit  is  exceptionally  well  equipped  to  satisfy  both  demands.  His 
writings  have  already  made  him  known  as  a  serious  and  thoughtful  student ; 
in  his  political  activities  he  has  proved  himself  one  of  the  strongest  leaders  of 
his  party.  In  his  book  Mr.  Hillquit  assumes  an  attitude  so  entirely  frank,  so 
evidently  fair  to  his  opponents,  that  criticism  is  disarmed  in  advance.  Social- 
ists throughout  the  country  have  generally  accepted  it  as  a  textbook  of  their 
propaganda,  while  Mr.  Hillquit's  clear  and  lucid  presentation  of  his  arguments 
has  appealed  with  special  force  to  the  non-socialist  reader. 

"  The  '  man  in  the  street '  will  find  this  little  volume  an  up-to-date  exposition 
of  the  Socialism  that  is  alive  in  the  world  to-day."  —  Review  of  Reviews. 

"  For  the  American,  Mr.  Hillquit's  book  is  the  best  presentation  of  the  social- 
ist point  of  view  that  has  yet  appeared." —  The  Economic  Review. 

"  It  can  be  recommended  as  a  full  and  sensible  statement  of  the  case  for 
socialism ;  ...  its  comprehension  and  lucidity  give  it  a  claim  upon  every 
thinking  person  whose  mind  on  this  subject  is  not  itself  comprehending  and 
lucid." —  The  Evening  Post,  Chicago. 

"  It  merits  the  praise  of  being  the  best  presentation  of  the  socialist  position 
that  has  been  published  since  it  reached  a  stage  that  calls  for  more  than  aca- 
demic discussion  .  .  .  and  it  has  the  rare  merit  of  being  interesting.  It  is  com- 
pact and  contains  information  that  if  sought  elsewhere  would  compel  a  hunt 
through  a  dozen  or  more  volumes."  —  The  Brooklyn  Eagle. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


By  WILLIAM  ENGLISH   WALLING 


Progressivism   and  After 

Cloth,  ismo,  $1.50  net 

This  is  a  book  which  every  thoughtful  socialist,  social  reformer,  and  those 
to  whom  social  reform  makes  any  appeal,  ought  to  read.  Mr.  Walling  views 
social  and  economic  questions  as  a  thinker  and  student,  never  merely  as  a 
theorist  or  partisan.  In  the  political  events  of  the  last  few  years  Mr.  Walling 
sees  much  that  is  significant  not  only  for  the  present  but  for  the  future.  What 
the  progress  of  affairs  in  the  next  generation  is  to  be  he  outlines  in  this  work 
in  a  fashion  that  is  as  convincing  as  it  is  unusual  from  the  socialistic  stand- 
point. Of  particular  interest  are  his  analyses  of  President  Wilson,  Colonel 
Roosevelt,  and  other  prominent  leaders,  while  his  description  of  that  which  has 
been  and  that  which  is  to  come  is  trenchant  and  keen.  Whether  one  agrees 
with  his  predictions  or  not,  the  force  and  clearness  with  which  the  issues  are 
indicated  distinguish  the  volume  for  all  kinds  of  readers. 

The   Larger  Aspects   of  Socialism 

Cloth,  $1.50  net;  postpaid,  $1.63 

"Your  two  books,  together  and  separately,  constitute  the  supreme  English 
contribution  to  Socialism."  —  Professor  George  D.  Herron. 

"  The  author  has  earned  a  right  to  a  front-rank  place  among  the  American 
Socialist '  intellectuals.'  ...  A  clear-sighted  observer,  and  a  reporter  honest 
with  himself  and  the  public."  —  The  Nation, 

Socialism   As   It   Is 

A  Survey  of  the  World-wide  Revolutionary  Movement 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $2.00  net;  postpaid,  $2.12 
*  Standard  Library  Edition,  $1.50  net 

A   NEW   DEPARTURE   IN   SOCIALIST    BOOKS 

"  Can  be  most  highly  recommended  as  a  sane  and  clear  exposition  and  is  not 
a  rehash  of  the  various  volumes  that  have  been  already  published  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  is  a  contribution  from  a  distinct  and  new  point  of  view."  —  The  New 
York  Times. 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

Publishers          64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


A  Living  ff^age, 

Its  Ethical  and  Economic  Aspects 

By  JOHN  A.   RYAN,  S.T.L. 

Professor  of  Ethics  and  Economics  in  St.  Paul's  Seminary. 

Cloth,  i2tno,  $1.00  net;  Standard  Library  Edition,  $.50 

u  Father  Ryan's  work  on  the  Living  Wage  is  perhaps  the  best  exposi- 
tion of  the  labor  phase  of  the  social  problem.  It  has  taken  its  place  on 
the  shelves  of  public  and  private  libraries  beside  other  standard  works, 
while  the  name  of  the  author  is  associated  with  the  leading  American 
sociologists. 

"  The  volume  is  prefaced  by  an  introduction  by  Professor  Richard  T.  Ely, 
the  noted  American  economist.  As  the  title  indicates,  the  subject  is  not 
merely  treated  from  an  economic  point  of  view,  but  also  in  its  economic 
aspects  —  a  course  of  procedure  that  is  somewhat  of  a  departure  from  pre- 
vailing discussions  of  economic  subjects.  There  is  a  tendency  to  treat 
political  economy  as  a  subject  related  to  mathematics.  Statistics  and 
axioms  are  the  predominating  features.  However,  the  science  of  political 
economy  cannot  disregard  the  origin  and  destiny  of  man. 

"  'The  Living  Wage '  is  based  on  the  principles  of  Christian  philosophy. 
Its  logic  proceeds  from  the  Christian  conception  of  the  dignity  of  man. 
Father  Ryan's  book  is  thus  a  most  timely  and  necessary  contribution  to 
sociological  literature.  That  'The  Living  Wage'  has  met  the  popularity 
that  it  has,  is  evidence  of  the  growing  conviction  that  the  social  problem 
cannot  be  solved  except  on  Christian  principles." —  Common  Cause. 

"  It  is  refreshing  to  pick  up  a  book  by  Dr.  Ryan,  who  is  always  so  sane 
and  so  convincing."  —  North  Western  Chronicle. 

"The  book  is  considered  the  best  presentation  of  Catholic  economic 
thought  at  the  disposal  of  the  general  reader."  —  Albany  Times-Union. 

"  That  this  economic  study  by  Father  Ryan  is  a  solid  work  is  evidenced 
by  the  fact  that  it  was  first  published  in  1906,  and  was  reprinted  in  1908, 
1910,  and  1912.  .  .  .  Instead  of  appeals  to  sentiment  or  glittering  gener- 
alities, Professor  Ryan  offers  seasoned  arguments  and  precise  doctrine." 
—  Portland  Evening  Telegram. 

"The  most  judicious  and  balanced  discussion  at  the  disposal  of  the 
general  reader."  —  World  To-day. 


THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


The  Theory  of  Social  Revolutions 

By  BROOKS  ADAMS 

Author  of  "  The  Law  of  Civilization  and  Decay,"  "  The  New  Empire,"  etc. 

Cloth,  izmo,  $1.25  net 
"  A  remarkable  work."  —  The  Argonaut. 

"  A  cleverly  written  book  by  a  clever  man.  The  argument  is  that  the 
existing  social  system  will  soon  be  changed  and  that  the  courts  have  be- 
come political  and  not  judicial."  —  Pittsburgh  Post. 

"No  one  interested  in  either  history  or  politics  can  afford  to  neglect 
Mr.  Adams'  views."  —  Newark  Evening  News. 

"...  no  more  fascinating  study  of  a  topic  so  grave  is  often  printed." 
—  New  York  World. 

"...  there  has  not  appeared  in  recent  years  so  calm  and  determined 
an  attack  upon  judicial  legislation."  —  La  Follettis  Magazine. 

"  A  very  stimulating  study."  —  Review  of  Reviews. 


Labor  and  Administration 

By  JOHN  R.  COMMONS 

Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin 

Cloth,  I2tno,  $1.60  net 

The  history  of  labor  laws  and  strikes  has  this  in  common  to  both  —  laws 
become  dead  letters ;  the  victories  of  strikes  are  nibbled  away.  Some 
philosophers  fall  back  on  the  individual's  moral  character.  Little,  they 
think,  can  be  done  by  law  or  unions.  There  are  others  who  inquire  how 
to  draft  and  enforce  the  laws,  how  to  keep  the  winnings  of  strikes  —  in 
short,  how  to  connect  ideals  with  efficiency. 

These  are  the  awakening  questions  of  the  past  decade,  and  the  subject 
of  this  book.  Here  is  a  field  for  the  student  and  economist  —  not  the 
"  friend  of  labor  "  who  paints  an  abstract  workingman,  but  the  utilitarian 
idealist,  who  sees  them  all  as  they  are  ;  not  the  curious  collector  of  facts 
and  statistics,  but  the  one  who  measures  the  facts  and  builds  them  into  a 
foundation  and  structure.  His  constructive  problem  is  not  so  much  the 
law  and  its  abstract  rights,  as  administration  and  its  concrete  results. 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  Tork 


American  Syndicalism --The  I.  ff^. 

By  JOHN  GRAHAM   BROOKS 
Author  of  "As  Others  See  Us,"  "The  Social  Unrest,"  etc. 

Cloth,  $1.25  net;  postpaid,  $1.36 

"  Mr.  Brooks's  book  is  a  careful,  sympathetic,  and  critical  study  of  Amer- 
ican syndicalism  as  represented  in  the  order  named  the  Industrial  Workers 
of  World. 

"The  theory,  or  'philosophy,'  of  this  syndicalism  is  given,  a  review  made  of 
the  practical  experiences  of  the  movement  as  it  has  expressed  itself  here  in 
the  last  few  years,  and  a  view  sought  of  its  possible  destinies  in  the  United 
States.  Mr.  Brooks  says : 

" '  In  it  and  through  it  is  something  as  sacred  as  the  best  of  the  great  dream- 
ers have  ever  brought  us.  In  the  total  of  this  movement,  the  deeper,  inner 
fact  seems  to  be  its  nearness  to  and  sympathy  with  that  most  heavy  laden  and 
long  enduring  mass  of  common  toilers.  Alike  to  our  peril  and  to  our  loss 
shall  we  ignore  this  fact'" — New  York  Tribune. 

The  Social  Unrest 

Studies  in  Labor  and  Social  Movements 

By  JOHN  GRAHAM   BROOKS 

Cloth,  I2tno,  394  pages,  $1.50  net 

"The  author,  Mr.  John  Graham  Brooks,  takes  up  and  discusses,  through 
nearly  four  hundred  pages,  the  economic  significance  of  the  social  questions 
of  the  hour,  the  master  passions  at  work  among  us,  men  versus  machinery, 
and  the  solution  of  our  present  ills  in  a  better  concurrence  than  at  present  ex- 
ists —  an  organization  whereby  every  advantage  of  cheaper  service  and  cheaper 
product  shall  go  direct  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people.  .  .  .  Nothing  upon 
his  subject  so  comprehensive  and  at  the  same  time  popular  in  treatment  as 
this  book  has  been  issued  in  our  country.  It  is  a  volume  with  live  knowledge 

—  not  only  for  workman  but  for  capitalist,  and  the  student  of  the  body  politic 

—  for  every  one  who  lives  —  and  who   does   not  ?  —  upon   the  product  of 
labor."  —  The  Outlook. 

Mr.  Bliss  Perry,  the  editor  of  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  says  of  it :  "A  fascinat- 
ing book  —  to  me  the  clearest,  sanest,  most  helpful  discussion  of  economic  and 
human  problems  I  have  read  for  years." 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

Publishers  64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  708  664     8 


